Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

NEW WRIT.

For the Borough of Hornsey, in the room of Captain the Rt. Hon. David Euan Wallace, M.C., deceased.— [Mr. James Stuart.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

CANNOCK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

EAST SURREY GAS BILL [Lords].

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed.

CAMBORNE WATER BILL [Lords] (By Order).

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

COURTS-MARTIAL

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for War the normal length of time taken to bring a soldier before a court-martial; and whether he will arrange that in all cases such trials shall take place without undue delay?

The Secretary of State for War (Captain Margesson): I regret that there are no statistics readily available which would enable me to answer the first part of the Question. As regards the second part, every effort is made to reduce to a minimum the period between arrest and court-martial, and I am considering whether any further instructions are necessary. If my hon. Friend is aware of any case in which there appears to have been

undue delay, I should be very glad if he would bring it to my attention.

Sir John Mellor: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend give equal attention to the time which elapses between conviction and promulgation of sentence?

Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir. I will look at both points.

HOME GUARD.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider utilising the large number of laid-up motor-cars for the purpose of making the Home Guard more mobile and therefore more efficient?

Captain Margesson: Adequate arrangements have been made to meet the transport requirements of the Home Guard, both under present conditions and in time of emergency. These arrangements include the use of unlicensed and uninsured cars or their earmarking for future use, where necessary.

Sir T. Moore: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend think it would be a good thing if these cars were issued out now, so as to enable Home Guard commanders to keep in closer and more constant touch with the various units?

Captain Margesson: I do not think that would be a good plan at present. The transport is earmarked if and when it is needed, and the primary role of the Home Guard is a static one.

Mr. Leach: Is there a large number of laid-up cars?

ROYAL AIR FORCE (CO-OPERATION).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now give an assurance that complete co-operation now exists between the Army and the Royal Air Force and that actual operational exercises have been and are being continued as a part of Army training in tactics?

Captain Margesson: All possible steps are being taken to secure the highest degree of co-operation between the Army and the Royal Air Force. Exercises in conjunction with formations of the Royal Air Force have been and are being carried out as part of Army training in tactics.

OFFICER'S PAY.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for War the reason for the long delay, from 8th February till 21st April, 1941, in giving consideration to the case of 2nd-Lieutenant H. D. Pullein-Thompson, who was informed that his period of absence from duty on full pay after illness had terminated on 2nd February; and whether, in view of the importance in cases where the facts are disputed, he will give directions for more rapid action in future, owing to the difficulties likely to be experienced by officers under these circumstances?

Captain Margesson: The delay to which my hon. Friend refers was due to the fact that it was necessary to obtain full reports of the medical history of this case through the Command. I would not like my hon. Friend to think, however, that the more urgent aspects of the case were not being considered in the meantime because authority was given on 14th March for the continuance of the officer's pay up to 2nd May. As regards the second part of the Question, the importance of dealing promptly with cases of this kind has been impressed on all concerned, and further instructions on this subject have been issued in the last few days.

Mr. Mander: Do I understand that this officer's pay has ceased from 2nd May?

Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir. He was given an extended period for a further three months.

OFFICERS' OUTFIT ALLOWANCE.

Colonel Arthur Evans: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give a rough estimate of the cost of increasing the outfit allowance to Army officers from £30 to £40 as from the date the purchase tax became effective and the additional annual cost?

Captain Margesson: I am afraid that it would not be in the public interest to give these figures, since they would enable the enemy to calculate the number of officers commissioned since the introduction of the Purchase Tax and the number that it is estimated will be commissioned annually.

Colonel Evans: I appreciate that, of course, but does not my right hon. and gallant Friend realise that with the figure at £30 an officer without private means

either has to incur a debt or to go without something that might be important, and according to. the War Office official list they are not even expected to wear socks, pants, vests or a macintosh, not to mention other things?

Captain Margesson: Conversations are taking place between my hon. Friend and myself, and perhaps we might leave it at that.

Mr. Thorne: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement mean that we are going to impose the means test here?

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman also bear in mind that to-day a number of poorer people are being promoted from the ranks to commissioned rank and find themselves in a difficult financial position? Will he consider their cases when he is considering the whole matter?

Captain Margesson: I do not quite appreciate the hon. Member's point. The point raised was that of kit allowance for officers, and, as I have said, certain conversations are going on.

Sir J. Mellor: Assuming that it is fair that officers should have to pay Purchase Tax on normal replacements, does my right hon. and gallant Friend think it fair or desirable that they should have to pay Purchase Tax on their outfits when first commissioned?

Captain Margesson: That is a point which has been dealt with in Questions and answers in this House on many occasions, both by myself and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

SWILL (COLLECTION).

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for War, what is the average weekly amount of swill obtained from military units in this country; and of what it mainly consists.

Captain Margesson: I am afraid that no figures are available for the total amount of swill obtained from military units in this country, but from experiments carried out in selected units, it is believed that it averages about six ounces a head a day. This represents a very considerable reduction on the corresponding figure for a year ago. The swill consists of vegetable waste and plate scrapings.

Sir T. Moore: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend quite satisfied that nothing is left in this swill that is still suitable for human food, in view of the report which appeared in the Press lately of 200 loaves having been found in the swill from one unit?

Captain Margesson: I can only say that a very great improvement is taking place all the time, and as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said on the case raised by my hon. and gallant Friend:
I am able to say that there is no foundation for the statement that the stores in question were reclaimed from Army swill tubs

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for War what has been the reduction in the daily number of accidents caused to, or by, military motor-vehicles since he issued his recent preventative instructions.

Captain Margesson: I am glad to say that the number of accidents reported in March in which Army vehicles were involved was 19 per cent. less than those reported in February, and the figures for April show a further reduction of 12 per cent. on those for March. In this connection the House may like to know the results of a recent census and analysis of the fatal accidents in which War Department vehicles have been concerned in the first three months of 1941. During this period a total of 2,264 persons were killed in traffic accidents throughout Great Britain, and of these 2,137 were civilians. The number of civilians killed as a result of an accident in which a War Department vehicle was in any way concerned was less than 6 per cent. of this total and the number of cases in which an Army driver was to blame was just under 2 per cent. That is to say about 40 civilians were killed as a result of negligence by soldiers. The number of soldiers who were killed on the roads during the same period was 129, and, of these, 52 were killed as a result of the negligence of another soldier. I hope that these figures will help to remove certain misconceptions which have arisen with regard to the extent to which Army vehicles are responsible for casualties on the roads. But I would not like the House to think that the position is regarded with complacency by my Department, and I

can assure them that the problem of securing a further reduction in the accident figures will continue to be pursued with the utmost vigour.

Sir T. Moore: Very satisfactory.

Sir Stanley Reed: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend agree that Army drivers are taught to drive with resolution and confidence, and in an emergency would be called upon to do so, and is it not inexpedient to weaken that confidence by exaggerating the extent of the damage done by Army vehicles?

Captain Margesson: I am very glad to hear that tribute to Army drivers, with which I thoroughly agree.

Mr. Maxton: But will they be trained to see that they do not kill the people on their own side?

Captain Margesson: Most certainly. The training of Army drivers is a most careful business.

Mr. Silverman: When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that in only 2 per cent. of the cases were the accidents caused by the negligence of soldiers, will he tell the House who was the judge of that? How did the right hon. and gallant Gentleman arrive at the conclusion that in only 2 per cent. of the cases was there negligent driving by soldiers?

Captain Margesson: I presume that the remainder of the cases were not due to negligence.

Mr. Silverman: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not seized of my point. In a particular case, who has to decide whether there has been negligence and who was negligent?

Captain Margesson: I take it that this information is the result of inquiries and investigations, possibly in civil courts.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIBYA (OPERATIONS).

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Secretary of State for War how long after the capture of Benghazi by our Forces was it before they were aware of the overwhelming forces that existed at Tripoli; and, as they precluded any prospect of a successful attack thereon, why were orders not given immediately for the destruction of the aerodrome, port and water supply and


our troops withdrawn, and a similar process followed at the other bases up to the Egyptian frontier?

Captain Margesson: The operations in Libya were fully dealt with in last week's Debate, and I have nothing to add to the statements made by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on that occasion.

Mr. Purbrick: In that statement did not the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the military information was satisfactory, and in that case would it not have been advisable to have had our troops withdrawn from those places much more quickly than they were, so as to avoid the necessity of having to go and bomb all those places more or less ineffectively?

Captain Margesson: I do not think it would be wise to go any further than the Prime Minister went in his carefully prepared statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

EDUCATION.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is in a position to make a statement regarding the future of education in Scotland comparable to the declaration regarding England and Wales made by the President of the Board of Education?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I am aware that my right hon. Friend has referred in public statements to various aspects of the educational position after the war. These are matters which are being considered as part of the post-war reconstruction problem which, as my hon. Friend knows, is under consideration by a Cabinet Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio. I can assure him that Scottish traditions and Scottish needs in education will be fully presented.

Mr. Mathers: Are we to understand from that reply that the Secretary of State realises the importance of keeping Scotland ahead in matters educational?

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: In view of the Answer of the right hon. Gentleman, and as I understand that the President of the

Board of Education himself has announced that he is making a very full inquiry into English education, may I ask whether any appropriate Minister of Scotland is making the same kind of inquiry?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir, but these reports will go through the appropriate Cabinet Committee.

HILL SHEEP FARMING.

Major Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether he is now in possession of sufficient information with regard to the costs of production in Scottish hill sheep farming; and whether he can give an assurance that these costs will be taken into account when the new wool prices are fixed?

Mr. Johnston: I have a good deal of information as to the very difficult financial position of hill sheep farming in Scotland, including evidence as to the increase and relative importance of the different items of cost in the farmers' outlays. This information will be fully taken into account when the 1941 wool prices are being fixed.

Mr. Robertson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that breeders of black-face sheep are receiving 11½d. per lb. for their wool, while the Wool Controller is selling it at 1s. 2d. per lb. in Scotland, and that the merchants are further selling it at 1s. 5d., free on rail, in Scotland? Does he not consider that 50 per cent. increase is far too much, when the farmers are in want?

Mr. Johnston: The latter part of my hon. Friend's question should, I think, be put to the Minister of Supply. The Question on the Order Paper was as to the amount that should be given to the wool producers. I would point out to the hon. Member that there are other considerations that must be taken into account besides actual wool prices. There is, for example, the 2s. 6d. subsidy given to hill sheep farmers for each breeding ewe.

BOMBED-OUT TENANTS, GLASGOW (REHOUSING).

Major Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the resolution recently passed by the Glasgow Corporation Emergency Housing Committee to the effect that, in the case of any persons deprived of their houses through enemy action, preference


was to be given to previous tenants of corporation houses for rehousing in corporation-scheme houses; whether he is aware that tenants bombed out of houses not previously included in a corporation scheme have been informed that they cannot be given any accommodation in corporation schemes until all previous tenants of corporation schemes have been rehoused, and that a petition by such tenants against this announcement has been rejected by the corporation and whether he will consider compelling the Glasgow Corporation to rescind this decision and put all bombed-out citizens on an equal footing?

Mr. Johnston: I have received representations against the resolution to which the hon. Member refers and have communicated with the Corporation of Glasgow in the matter. They inform me that only a small number of corporation houses are available. Of this number more than half have in fact been let to previous tenants of privately owned houses, although the number of corporation tenants requiring to be rehoused is nearly twice the number of corporation houses available. The resolution in question, however, has implications in relation to the corporation's future policy which seem to me to warrant further inquiries, and I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as they have been completed.

Major Lloyd: Has my right hon. Friend any information whether any other local authority in the whole Kingdom has adopted this very unfair attitude, and is he aware that great indignation prevails in Glasgow in regard to this matter?

Mr. Johnston: I have no information that any other local authority has passed a similar resolution.

Mr. McKinlay: Is it not a fact that the allocation of houses built under the Housing Act must be determined by the conditions laid down in the Act of Parliament, and also that Glasgow Corporation are not called upon to provide houses for bombed-out families, as such houses never were provided for?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir, but may I point out to the hon. Gentleman that Section 47 of the Act of 1935 specifically says that preference in the selection of tenants is to be given to those who are living under unsatisfactory housing conditions?

Mr. McKinlay: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information that the allocations do not conform to the conditions laid down in the Act?

GRAMPIAN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ORDER.

Mr. Neil Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether he has received the Report of the Commission on the Glen Affric Scheme of the Grampian Electric Supply Company; and whether, in view of the strong feeling in Scotland over this scheme, and the fact that this scheme will not benefit the war effort, he will suspend the consideration of the report until the end of the war?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir, I have received the Report of the Commission, who after inquiry into the Grampian Electricity Supply Order recommend that it should be issued, with certain modifications. I have no power to prevent individuals from promoting Orders nor to prevent Parliament from discussing and deciding upon contentious private legislation. In accordance with my duties under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, I shall be required to submit at some convenient date a Confirmation Bill. The responsibility for accepting or rejecting that Bill will then rest upon Parliament.

Mr. Maclean: Since it lies within the jurisdiction of the right hon. Gentleman to submit the Bill, will he take care that the Bill is not submitted until the war is finished—if he is then still in his present office?

Mr. Johnston: I am afraid that I have no option in the matter.

Mr. Mathers: When is the Bill likely to be submitted?

Mr. Johnston: I cannot say. I said it would be at some convenient date.

Sir Herbert Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that, if we had only passed the Caledonian Power Bill, we should be better off to-day?

Mr. Johnston: That is a highly disputable question.

Mr. Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can make a statement re the hearing of the case for the Glen Affric plans of the Grampian Electric Supply Company; on whose


authority members of the public were refused admission to the hearing; whether a shorthand verbatim report of the evidence was taken; and whether this will be printed and circulated, as is the rule in other important cases heard by the Commissioners and in which the public is keenly interested?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir. The Defence Regulation 6b provides that, where it is certified by the Secretary of State that it is necessary in the interests of- the Defence of the Realm that an inquiry by Commissioners under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act should not be held in public, the Chairman of the Commissioners is to give directions accordingly, and also to secure that no copy of the evidence is to be supplied except to the Secretary of State or to any party having a locus standi to appear at the inquiry. In the case of this inquiry I was advised that statements were likely to be made not only about the proposed new works but about the position and capacity of existing generating stations and transmission lines and the present and prospective load in the area north of the Forth for domestic, industrial and war needs, and I therefore granted a certificate under the regulation. A shorthand verbatim report of the evidence was taken, and while its publication would be contrary to the Regulation, I am considering means by which Members will have an opportunity of seeing the evidence.

Mr. Maclean: Is this not a complete violation of the whole situation in this part of Scotland? Is it not a fact that all that is necessary to be known is already known, and that all this secrecy is causing great unrest in Scotland in regard to the promoters of the Scheme? We should like to know why this matter is being singled out, as it is something which cannot in any degree be of help during the period of the war?

Mr. Johnston: I can only say that the advice given to me was entirely contrary to the statement made by the hon. Gentleman, and that the position and capacity of existing generating stations and transmission lines were likely to be elaborately referred to before the Committee.

Mr. Maclean: Are they not already in operation and already known to the public as well as to other countries, and conse-

quently there would be no divulging of secret information; and is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman has been very badly advised in having this matter held in secret and behind closed doors?

Mr. Johnston: I can only repeat that we must go by the highly specialised technical advice that we receive.

Mr. Maclean: Is not such advice sometimes very untechnical? I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the first opportunity on the Motion for the Adjournment.

MALE MENTAL NURSES.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the grievances suffered by Scottish male nurses serving away from home on account of their conditions being worse than those agreed for similar staffs in England and whether he has been able to ensure not less favourable conditions to the Scottish male nurses than those in effect in England?

Mr. Johnston: I am glad to be able to say that the conditions for transferred male mental nurses in Scotland have been assimilated to those applicable to similar officers in England and the provisions operate retrospectively from the same dates. The new conditions briefly state that where a married officer is required to transfer his home he will be paid £1 1s. per week or be provided with free billeting, and that officers who can arrange to remove their homes will be refunded their removal expenses. In addition there are allowances to unmarried officers who have continuing liabilities. For further details I would refer the hon. Member to the terms of the circular, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Mathers: Does that mean that the retrospective payments will be made quite soon?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, and they will be made back to the same dates as those from which they are paid in England.

POLICE SEARCHES AND INQUIRIES.

Mr. Maxton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why police action has been taken in several towns in Scotland against Scottish Nationalists; why their homes have been visited and searched,


documents and papers seized, numbers of individuals taken to police stations, detained and subjected to prolonged cross-examination; and whether he can state on whose authority this action was taken, and under what powers?

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I have been asked to reply. No action has been taken against any person because of his association with Scottish Nationalism or the Scottish Nationalist Party. In consequence, however, of information in the possession of the authorities, search warrants obtained under Defence Regulation 88A were executed on 3rd May at certain premises in which it was believed that evidence would be found bearing upon the commission by certain persons of acts prejudicial to the public safety and the defence of the realm. Some of the occupiers of these premises, who are not necessarily suspected of any offence, were asked to accompany the police to the police station for the purpose of inquiries, but there has been no detention except in one case, in which an Order was made under Defence Regulation 18BB, in one in which a conviction has since been obtained for a contravention of Section 3 (4) of the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939, and in another in which a charge has been brought for a contravention of the Firearms Act in respect of the unauthorised possession of quantities of firearms and ammunition. Investigations are still proceeding and I am not in a position to make any further statement.

Mr. Maxton: Are people no longer allowed to have shot guns in Scotland for sporting purposes, and will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer that part of the Question which asks on whose authority the action was taken?

The Lord Advocate: With regard to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, the firearms which were revealed were not of a kind used for sporting purposes. As regards the second part of the question, the procedure under the search warrants followed the ordinary course. They were granted on sworn informations, by sheriffs in certain cases and by justices of the peace in certain cases.

Mr. Maxton: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell me that the whole

series of raids on respectable citizens was carried out on the responsibility. of Sheriffs-substitute, and that he and the Secretary of State for Scotland are shuffling the responsibility on to the Sheriffs-substitute?

The Lord Advocate: Certainly not. I think the hon. Member asked me whose authority was given for the search warrants, but, as I stated in my original Answer, the action was taken because of information in the possession of the authorities indicating that acts prejudicial to the public safety and the Defence of the Realm were being committed or were in contemplation, and the action was deliberately concerted with a view to the detection and prevention of those acts.

Mr. Maxton: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that melodramatic nonsense of this sort is of any use to anyone?

Mr. Speaker: rose —

Mr. Maxton: I am not so easily shut up. I do not interrupt very often.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that I should not allow that kind of language in a supplementary question.

Mr. Maxton: That was just an aside. I want to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he believes that the people whose homes were raided by the police—respectable citizens, many of whom he knows—many of whom are his personal friends and have been for years, have criminal intentions against the general welfare of this country? I am asking the Secretary of State for Scotland, to whom I put the Question down.

The Lord Advocate: I have already made it plain that the purpose of the search, as the Defence Regulations make it plain, was to enable evidence to be obtained of the commission of certain offences by certain persons, not necessarily the persons whose premises were searched. I have made no allegation against any specific person.

Mr. Maxton: You just sent police to break into the premises.

The Lord Advocate: But I have stated, and I repeat, that the information in the possession of the authorities justified the


search being made and I would venture to add that the discovery of the firearms and ammunition in itself justifies the action taken.

Mr. Maxton: It is a lot of rubbish.

BOARD OF CONTROL ORDER.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Lord Advocate whether the General Board of Control for Scotland are in possession of the documents necessary to validate the detention of T. S. Taylor in Morningside Asylum, Edinburgh?

Mr. Johnston: Mr. Taylor was placed in the Fife District Mental Hospital upon an order granted by the sheriff, and his transfer to the Royal Edinburgh Hospital for Mental Disorders was carried out with the sanction of the General Board of Control granted in accordance with their Statutory powers. The original Order, which is still in force, is kept at the Fife District Asylum to which Mr. Taylor was first committed, and a copy of it is in the possession of the General Board of Control.

Mr. Maclean: May I ask whether, in the removal of this patient from one place to the other, one of the two certifying doctors was a private doctor or the family doctor of the individual?

Mr. Johnston: I cannot answer that without inquiry, but I will endeavour to find out.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

CANTEEN FACILITIES.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines, what progress is being made in the provision of canteen facilities at mines in the various districts?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) on 26th March. Efforts are being made, in conjunction with the Miners' Welfare Commission and the mine managements, to provide further canteen accommodation at the pits.

Mr. Smith: Will that include mobile canteens, because some mines have not a suitable room for this purpose?

Mr. Grenfell: I think it must.

ANNUAL REPORTS.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines whether it is intended to publish, in an abbreviated form, the Annual Reports of his department?

Mr. Grenfell: A general decision has been taken to suspend for the time being the issue of Department Reports not immediately essential to the current war effort. It is not, therefore, proposed to issue the Reports in question at present, even in an abbreviated form.

Mr. Smith: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there are plenty of matters in the mining industry which are far from satisfactory and which might warrant at least the issue of a summary?

Mr. Grenfell: I do not think there is any reason why we should not discuss in this House, or give publicity in another way to urgent matters of that kind, but there is a large mass of statistical information which would serve no good purpose at present.

Mr. Rhys Davies: But Ministers for other Departments have promised reports in an abbreviated form.

Mr. Grenfell: Yes, but there is really no reason why we cannot give all the information required without handing it round in printed form.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL RATIONING.

Mr. Leach: asked the Secretary for Petroleum, whether his attention has been drawn to the increased danger to our petrol supplies, and whether he is now prepared to place some restrictions on pleasure motoring and the use of motor cars for shopping, domestic and other non-essential purposes which cause much public irritation?

The Secretary for Petroleum (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The hon. Member will no doubt have seen the recent announcement that reductions are to be made in the supplementary allowances for the next rationing period, June and July.

Mr. Leach: Surely that does not cover the point raised in my Question. This is a very grave matter. Does my hon. Friend realise that with every gallon of petrol used in this country there is mixed the blood of seamen?

Mr. Lyons: Arising out of the original answer, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the large number of cars parked outside a football match a week ago, or to the large number of cars continually going to races, indicating that a vast amount of petrol is still available for private use, and instead of ordering some small reduction of supplementary rations, will he take the bold step of putting an end to what many regard as a grave public scandal?

Mr. Lloyd: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman kindly wait for the result of the reduction?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TEXTILE INDUSTRY.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Presirent of the Board of Trade whether he can make a statement as to the present position in relation to the concentration of the Lancashire textile industry.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Lyttelton): For the spinning and weaving sections of the industry, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made on 29th April in reply to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Royton (Mr. Sutcliffe). I have discussed the concentration of the finishing sections with representatives of employers and operatives of those sections, and plans are now being prepared. Doublers and waste cotton spinners and manufacturers who wish to put forward voluntary schemes for the concentration of production should communicate with the Cotton Control, as soon as possible, and in any event not later than 15th June.

Mr. Davies: How far have these concentration negotiations proceeded by way of discussion?

Mr. Lyttelton: The concentration arrangements are still under discussion. I think I can promise that the discussions will very shortly be concluded.

GRAMOPHONE RECORDS (MANUFACTURE).

Mr. Mander: asked the President of the Board of Trade the reason why gramophone records are now being made at a factory, of which the name has been given to him, including "Deutschland Uber Alles" and German soldier songs in German; and who gave the order, and who is the customer?

Mr. Lyttelton: I understand that the record in question has been in the makers catalogue since 1932, and that copies have continued to be supplied on demand until recently. I am informed, however, that no further copies of the record are now being made, and that there are no orders outstanding.

Mr. Mander: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that they were being made, only a week ago? Does he think that this is at this stage the most useful way of employing British labour; or does he think that somebody was preparing a welcome for Rudolf Hess?

Mr. Lyttelton: My information is that 22 copies of the records were made since 1st January. I hope that my hon. Friend will realise that other people's sense of humour is not always the same as his and mine.

Mr. Mander: Does my right hon. Friend really think it funny that British labour should be used in making these records?

RETAIL TRADE (COMMITTEE).

Captain Sir Derrick Gunston: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make about the retail trade?

Mr. Doland: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he will be in a poistion to make a statement in order to alleviate great anxiety in the retail trades of this country, following the announcement that the whole question of the future of the distributive trades was under consideration?

Mr. Lyttelton: The House is aware of the many and urgent problems which confront retail traders at the present time. My object is to ensure that the present disabilities from which they suffer do not press with unfair severity on any particular class or section of the retail trade. In order to ensure that the problem is fully considered in all its aspects, I have decided, after consultation with my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Labour and National Service and Food, to appoint a committee to advise me. I am not yet in a position to announce the full membership of the committee, but Mr. W. Craig Henderson, K.C., has agreed to act as chairman. I propose that the committee should include two members of independent standing, two representatives


of labour, and five or six members with experience of the various categories of retail trade. This makes rather a larger committee than I could have wished, but I am satisfied that if it is to include knowledge and experience of the subject it cannot well be smaller, and it is my object to secure that any proposals put forward shall take full account of the various interests concerned. The terms of reference of the committee are as follow:
To examine the present problems of the retail trade in goods other than food, having regard both to the immediate needs of the conduct of the war and to the position after the war, and to report.
I have given the committee these wide terms of reference because I am anxious not to prejudice in any way either its consideration of the questions with which it has to deal or the directions in which it may look for a solution of the difficulties. I do not intend, however, that its report should be delayed until it has surveyed the whole field; that would take far too long. I propose, as soon as the committee has had time for preliminary discussion, to consult with the chairman with the object of preparing one or more interim reports on the more urgent aspects of the subjects.
The decision to leave food distribution outside the scope of the committee was taken at the request of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food, and I understand it is endorsed generally by retail traders, whether engaged in the distribution of food or of other goods. In so far as the problems considered by the committee affect food distribution, they can be considered in relation to those trades by the consultative machinery which my right hon. Friend has already established. In conclusion, I would like to make it clear, first, that the appointment of this committee is intended to expedite the study of those urgent and important problems, and, secondly, that I regard it as essential that any measures which may be taken to deal with them should secure a fair and equitable balance between the different trading interests concerned, both small and large.

Mr. Rhys Davies: When my right hon. Friend speaks of the representatives of labour, does he mean representatives of the trade unions in the distributive trade?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Lyons: Can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that, pending the report of this Committee, he will take no steps, by order or otherwise, for the concentration, or telescoping, of the retail trade?

Mr. Lyttelton: It has never been part of the Government's policy to formulate plans for the concentration of the retail trade.

Sir. H. Williams: Arising out of my right hon. Friend's reply—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Sir H. Williams: This is rather important.

Mr. Speaker: We have spent about five minutes over this Question already.

At the end of Questions—

Sir H. Williams: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In connection with the rather lengthy Reply to Question No. 31, could it not be arranged that when Ministers have very lengthy Answers they should be given at the end of Questions, so that there would be ample opportunity for Supplementary Questions? The Question raised very important issues, and you, quite properly, prevented further Supplementary Questions because of the slow progress being made; nevertheless, that did have the effect of excluding one or two Supplementary Questions of very considerable importance.

Mr. Speaker: Very often when the Reply to a Question has been of unusual length, I have arranged for it to be taken at the end of Questions, so as to give an opportunity for further Supplementary Questions, but on this occasion I did not know that the Reply was going to be so long.

CHILDREN'S FOOTWEAR.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the communications from Leyton and other education committees respecting an undesirable restriction in the manufacture of children's boots and shoes; and whether he is satisfied that the supply of this class of footwear will be adequate in the future?

Mr. Lyttelton: The answer to the first part of the Question is, Yes, Sir; but I would add that the education committees


who have made representations to me about the manufacture of children's boots and shoes appear to have relied on a communication addressed to them by the trade, for the information contained in which I cannot accept any responsibility. In reply to the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), on 6th May.

Mr. Sorensen: Am I to understand that the impression conveyed by this trade association is quite unwarranted and unjustified?

Mr. Lyttelton: As far as it is possible to secure it, we have arranged that the output of children's footwear should be the same as in 1940, with no serious shortages occurring.

PROPAGANDA FILMS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the proposal that short propaganda films for this country are to be made in America; and whether he will take action to ensure that Government propaganda and other films are made in this country?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am not aware of any proposal of the kind to which the hon. Member refers. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Information informs me that no films are being made or are likely to be made in U.S.A. for his Department; and as regards other films, I have already said several times that the Government will do all they can in present circumstances to maintain film production in this country.

Mr. Sorensen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a well-known film star recently announced that she was departing to Hollywood in order to make propaganda films for the Government?

Mr. Lyttelton: My hon. Friend will scarcely expect me either to substantiate or to refute the statements of film stars.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILK (DELIVERIES).

Mr. Graham White: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what instructions have been given to distributors of milk in order that the proper quantity of milk may be delivered to households whose numbers were

temporarily diminished or increased during the period on which future deliveries were determined?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): Distributors have been instructed to supply milk to additional members of the household who have arrived since the first week in March, which was taken as the basis for the restriction in deliveries, and subsequently to apply to the regional officer of the Milk Marketing Board for an adjustment of their bulk supplies.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW LONDON TUBE RAILWAYS.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the present position regarding the construction of the new London tubes; and when some part of them will come into use?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Wilkinson): Work is in progress on a number of sites, but it has not yet reached a point which would enable my right hon. Friend to make an accurate estimate of the date when they will be brought into use. It is hoped that a substantial proportion of the sites will be completed by the beginning of next winter.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOCKE-WULF AIRCRAFT LOSSES.

Major Vyvyan Adams: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the same reasons as prevent our publication of the losses sustained by the enemy sub marine fleet, militate against the disclosure of the losses inflicted upon the Focke-Wulf aircraft which raid our shipping; and, if not, whether he will arrange for the periodic publication of such losses?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part, it is the intention to publish from time to time as much information as the circumstances allow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING LOSSES (PUBLICATION).

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Prime Minister whether on the analogy of


not publishing the damage by enemy action to shipyards, factories, warehouses, railways, roads, etc., he will discontinue the publication of shipping losses, while communicating them as necessary to friendly Powers?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): In all these matters, a balance has to be struck between giving the utmost information to the public and the least possible helpful information to the enemy. At the present time we are publishing our shipping losses monthly, as this seems to meet both the aforesaid conditions most agreeably. But all these questions have to be kept under constant review in the light of changing circumstances.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how often these figures are misinterpreted, un backed as they are by great achievements and relevant facts?

The Prime Minister: If you have no great achievements, you will find that the absence of figures will not prevent misrepresentation and misinterpretation.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR WEAPONS PRODUCTION.

Mr. Granville: asked the Prime Minister whether in order to standardise types of tanks, guns, ships and aircraft and to place the production of war weapons under single direction, he will give consideration to setting up an allied war production council, to include representatives of the British Commonwealth and the United States of America; and whether he will invite the United States Government to ask Mr. Wendell Willkie and other eminent American industrial and political leaders to join such a body in order to give their services for an arms drive?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The machinery to co-ordinate the production of war weapons in the British Empire and the United States of America is working smoothly and is being constantly developed. I would not presume to advise the United States Government who should represent them on any joint organisation which may be set up now or in the future as part of that machinery.

Mr. Granville: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration that the

Allied single command was the turning point in the last war, and that the union of British and American production to beat Nazi mechanisation may be the decisive factor in this; and as most experts seem to agree upon this, will not it be better to suggest it for consideration now rather than later?

The Prime Minister: I am not at all sure that these very large and discursive topics are well suited for treatment at Question time.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITIA CAMPS (JUDGE'S REPORT).

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet received a report from the Judge of the High Court on the question of the Militia camps; and whether he intends to publish it?

The Prime Minister: I have arranged that the Report should be available in the Vote Office this afternoon in the form of a White Paper.

Sir W. Smithers: While thanking the Prime Minister for his Answer, is it the fact that the Judge has only had before him the evidence that was before the Select Committee, and will my right hon. Friend now ask the Law Officers of the Crown and the Public Prosecutor to examine any further evidence that may be submitted, so that this unsatisfactory and damaging state of affairs may quickly be cleared up?

The Prime Minister: It is usual, I believe, to read a Report before proceeding to ask questions about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER OF STATE.

Major V. Adams: asked the Prime Minister what are the precise functions that will be discharged by the holder of the office of Minister of State?

The Prime Minister: The Minister of State will discharge general Cabinet duties and the special duties assigned to a Member of the Defence Committee of the War Cabinet. The Defence Committee works in two sections: the Defence Committee (Operations), and Defence Committee (Supply). In future, the Lord Privy Seal will act as Deputy Chairman of the former; and the Minister of State,


of the latter body. The Minister of State will also act as Referee on priority questions.

Mr. Shinwell: Will anybody be able to protect the Referee?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I shall always be at hand.

Sir H. Williams: Will this Minister have a seal?

The Prime Minister: If in the course of the discharge of his important functions, it is found that the use of a seal will be helpful in the public interest, I have not the slightest doubt that timely measures will be taken to provide it.

Sir H. Williams: What will be the symbol of authority to act?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DAMAGE ACT.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the war damage premium will be based on the quinquennial Schedule A assessment of house property or on the figure agreed periodically by the inspector of taxes according to the return of income and outgoings rendered by the taxpayer?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): Under Section 19 of the War Damage Act, 1941, the contribution in respect of house property is to be calculated on the net Schedule A assessment in force at 3rd September, 1939. This would be the assessment made at the quinquennial valuation, except where the assessment then made was replaced by another assessment having effect at 3rd September, 1939. My hon. Friend may, however, have in mind cases in which tax relief not involving a revision of the Schedule A assessment is given. In such cases the contribution will be charged on the basis of the assessment as it stands.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a regulation, under the War Damage Act, that mortgagees shall indicate, when charging interest on mortgaged property, when the mortgagee has the right to recover a proportion of his contributions, and what amount is payable by each of the two contracting parties?

Sir K. Wood: I have no power under the War Damage Act to make, a regulation of the kind suggested, but the object which my hon. Friend has in mind will, I hope, be met in another way. The demand for the first instalment of contribution will be accompanied by a leaflet explaining, amongst other things, the cases in which, and the extent to which, a mortgagor is entitled to recover part of his liability to the instalment from the mortgagee.

Mr. Woodburn: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer use his good influence with the War Damage Commission to help the mortgagors, who in many cases are very poor people and are not accustomed to studying financial percentages, whereas the mortgagees, in the majority of cases, are business firms who can quite easily give the same information as is given in cases of Income Tax reduction, so that the mortgagors can know what they are entitled to deduct?

Sir K. Wood: I will send the suggestion of my hon. Friend to the Commission.

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the position will be as regards premiums for war damage insurance in cases where, on a reduction in rent, the Schedule A assessment has also been subsequently reduced?

Sir K. Wood: As my hon. Friend is aware, the War Damage contribution is in general to be charged on the basis of the Schedule A assessment in force at the beginning of the risk period, that is at 3rd September, 1939. Any reduction of a Schedule A assessment as from a subsequent date would not affect the charge of the contribution.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

FAMILY ALLOWANCES.

Mr. White: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has made investigation into the cost of any scheme or schemes of family allowances, in order to ascertain the total cost of such schemes, after deduction of consequential savings, to the unemployment fund and other public services?

Sir K. Wood: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) on 20th March last.

WAGE PAYMENTS (STAGGERING).

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider arranging for the payment of wages twice a week or on a staggered system during the week and make the existing currency do more work as an alternative to increasing the fiduciary issue of notes with the consequent danger of an uncontrolled expansion of credit by the joint stock banks?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. An increase in the fiduciary note issue does not in present circumstances involve the danger which my hon. Friend fears. The volume of notes in circulation is governed by the public demand for them, and that demand is largely determined by the volume of employment caused by the Government's war expenditure and by the methods by which that expenditure is financed. The Government's financial policy is directed towards precluding the possibility of an unnecessary expansion of credit in any form.

Mr. Woodburn: While appreciating that answer, is it not the case that the volume of notes will also increase the volume of notes lying in the banks at certain times and enable the banks to issue more credit on account of this; and will the right hon. Gentleman also consider this subject from the point of view that the staggering of wages would be a great convenience to distributive trades in making purchases spread over the week instead of on one day?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. I appreciate the last point put by my hon. Friend, but I think that, though his proposal about wage payments is presumably to secure economy in the use of bank notes, it would scarcely have any appreciable effect even in that direction. Any saving in the amount of bank notes would be non recurrent and confined at the most to those issued early in the first week of the change.

CHILD EVACUEES, UNITED STATES (REMITTANCES).

Mrs. Rathbone: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the desire of parents to maintain their children who have been evacuated to the United States of America, he will consider relaxing the present restrictions to permit small but regular sums of money to be sent to the American foster-parents; or

whether he will consent to the formation in this country of a contributory fund, invested for the time being in war savings, but understood to be destined, after the war, for the American foster-parents, or whatever American charities may be agreed upon?

Sir K. Wood: I fully appreciate the desire of parents to maintain their children who have been evacuated to the United States of America, but I would remind my hon. Friend that, in deciding to send these children to the United States, parents did so with a knowledge that permission would not be given to remit funds for their maintenance, and in practically all cases a declaration was signed before the children left this country to the effect that no application to make such remittances would be made. I fear that I cannot agree to waive this stipulation, for it is essential to our war effort that our exchange resources should be conserved to meet our very large overseas commitments in gold or dollars. As regards the second part of the Question, our need for dollars after the war will certainly be very great, and I fear that I could not agree to an arrangement on the lines proposed which would involve a burden on the exchanges after the war.

DEATH DUTIES (CIVILIANS KILLED BY ENEMY ACTION).

Sir Adam Maitland (for Sir George Hume): asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will include in the Finance Bill provisions to give some relief from Death Duties in the case of civilians killed as the result of enemy action?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. The existing law provides certain relief from the Death Duties payable on the death of a member of the Armed Forces of the Crown, and also on successive deaths of such individuals, where the death occurs owing to enemy action. I have had under reconsideration the position in the case of civilian deaths and have decided to propose that relief should be allowed in their case. The Finance Bill will accordingly contain a clause providing for the extension to the case of civilians, whose death is due to injuries caused by the operations of war, of a relief from Death Duties similar to that given in the case of the Armed Forces. This provision will be retrospective to the beginning of the war.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL BORROWERS (BANK CHARGES).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the highest rate within his knowledge charged by banks to agricultural borrowers?

Sir K. Wood: I have no detailed knowledge of the rates charged in individual cases.

Mr. Stokes: Does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer recall that recently he made a statement which purported to give the average rate charged on agricultural borrowings, and will he explain to the House how he arrived at the average rate, if he did not know the highest rate?

Sir K. Wood: My statement was as to the average rate, which was based upon general information which was given to me.

Mr. Stokes: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer state what was the highest loan rate on which that general rate was arrived at as the average?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR WEAPONS WEEK, LONDON.

Mr. Brooke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will approach the Defence Ministries to ensure that the success of the forthcoming War Weapons Week in London is not jeopardised by the number of military bands, tanks, guns and enemy aircraft allocated for public display during the week proving to be inadequate for the reasonable needs of all the numerous boroughs participating simultaneously in this savings effort?

Sir K. Wood: I understand that the Defence Ministries have promised all the assistance they can give consistently with operational and urgent training requirements.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE).

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider giving financial assistance to local authorities, suffering from enemy action, in a systematic manner instead of confining help to those on the point of collapse; whether he is aware that the present

policy encourages local authorities to budget for a deficit; and whether he will examine the possibility of making grants in aid of rate income, until such time as rebuilding operations are practicable, taking as the basis of Exchequer liability the rateable value of any premises which have to be permanently erased from the valuation lists?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I have been asked to reply. Financial assistance is already being given in a systematic manner to local authorities which satisfy my right hon. Friend that owing to war-time conditions, they are unable to maintain essential services out of ordinary revenue. The reply to the second part of the Question is in the negative. If in present circumstances a local authority cannot meet their budget liabilities without levying a rate of an unreasonable amount, the present practice is for them to consult with my Department and to levy a rate which with Government assistance will enable them to meet their liabilities. The suggestion in the last part of the Question has already been brought to my right hon. Friend's notice and fully considered, but it is not acceptable to the Government because, apart from other considerations, an arrangement which differentiates in principle between loss of rate income due to physical damage by enemy action and losses attributable to evacuation, or other war conditions, would not, in the view of the Government, be justifiable.

Sir J. Mellor: In view of the reply to the second part of my Question, would the hon. Lady consider the debates which have been taking place among some local authorities as to whether they should attempt to balance their budgets or budget for a deficit? Further, is she aware that the conclusions which have been reached have been very different?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, Sir, and perhaps their attention will be drawn to the matter by this Question to-day. If these Councils will communicate with my right hon. Friend's Department, I think the information can be made clear to them.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET MINISTERS (PUBLICITY).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many


Cabinet Ministers are allowed, at the national expense, the services of personal publicity experts; what salaries those persons receive; and which members of the Government they serve?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): None, Sir.

Mr. Adams: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the allegation contained in this Question appeared in one of our national newspapers recently?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT BUILDING CONTRACTS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether he will consider the advisability of giving directions that, in future, Government building contracts shall be placed under the supervision of architects instead of consulting engineers in the light of the Auditor General's report on wastage and excessive costs?

Major Dugdale (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. So far as concerns building contracts that come directly under the Ministry of Works and Buildings, it has been, and will be, the policy to appoint as supervisor for each particular work those most suited by training and experience, whether architects or engineers. Many works now under construction are being supervised by architects.

Mr. Mander: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to call the attention of the Minister to the fact that this work is a proper job of architects and that large sums of public money could be saved if they were more generally employed?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War how often prisoners of war camps in Germany are being visited by Red Cross inspectors; and will he give a statement showing in detail when various camps in which British prisoners of war were last visited and how this compares with visits to German prisoners of war camps in this and other countries?

Captain Margesson: I understand that visits to prisoners of war camps in Germany by International Red Cross inspectors are made approximately every three months. The information asked for in the second part of the Question is not immediately available, but is being obtained from the International Red Cross Committee, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as it is received.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRE SERVICES (REORGANISATION).

Rear-Admiral Beamish: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration has recently been given to the reorganisation of the fire services and what decision has been reached?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. With the threat of war in view the fire service has gone through a process of unceasing and often very rapid development. Last September, when heavy raiding began, the service which confronted the menace had been expanded to many times its normal peace-time size. From the actual test, with its unprecedented and in some respects unpredictable conditions, the regular service and the A.F.S. have emerged with flying colours, and I should like to pay to them a very sincere tribute of admiration for their conspicuous personal courage and skill.
Many lessons have been learned in the hard school of the past eight months' experience. Not all these lessons can be publicly mentioned by myself, nor indeed by hon. Members The schemes for reinforcing heavily raided areas have been widened and developed. The Regional technical staffs and the fire department of the Home Office have been strengthened. Regional and central inspection staffs have carried the lessons of the raids from raided areas to all the other principal target areas. Regional conferences have been held to drive the lessons home. Finally a shortage of man-power will be met by the National Service Act of April last.
Now, with intensified attack, a drastic change of organisation must be made. In spite of all that has been done, or can be done, to develop and improve the emergency fire services, a fundamental difficulty remains and springs from the


fact that the fire service is a local service. There are in England and Wales alone over 1,400 local fire authorities, many of small size and slender resources. The changes of the last eight months, some of which I have enumerated, have nearly all of them been in the direction of building upon this sectional and divided foundation a superstructure with as many as possible of the characteristics of a unified service.
This process has now gone as far as it can go, and that is not far enough. Further progress is not possible with an army divided into so many forces of varying size, the bulk of them very small. We need to be able to use effectively all that we have of skilled direction at the centre and able leadership in the field. Flexibility and great speed in action are essential. On these grounds, the Government has decided to seek from Parliament powers to place the whole fire brigade resources of the country under the general control of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Scotland, with a view to the re-grouping of the resources into larger units for purposes of administration and control, with unity of command over each force, and to constitute mobile fire fighting units for reinforcing purposes or other special duties. This means, of course, that, as a war measure, this service will pass for the time being from local authority control, and for the time being the Exchequer will bear the cost of the service less a contribution from local funds which remains to be fixed, and which will be on the basis of 75 per cent. of the cost of the regular fire brigade service in a standard year.
Local authorities, generally speaking, have done their work well, and I am sure that the House will recognise the devotion and efficiency they have brought to their tremendous task. It is not a reflection on them that the task itself has now grown altogether beyond local resources. I have explained the plan in a general way to the representatives of the Associations of local authorities in England and Wales and the London County Council and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has done so in the case of the Scottish authorities. We shall remain in consultation with them and will depend largely upon their experience and good will in effecting the

changes and operating the new services. We shall, of course, in shaping the new organisation and dispositions, have regard to the circumstances of each area.
Some of the necessary preliminary measures can, I am advised, be carried out under existing powers, but for other purposes legislation will be necessary. It is the Government's intention to submit to Parliament as soon as practicable a Bill to confer any necessary additional powers on the Secretaries of State and to ask the House to pass the Bill through all its stages as an emergency measure.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will give satisfaction, and that it has brought to an end very well-meant but mediaeval methods, and will he do his utmost to press forward the necessary legislation?

Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I can assure him that we shall move with all practicable speed, but it will be appreciated that these are big changes and will take a little time fully to complete. No time will, however, be lost.

Mr. R. C Morrison: In view of the fact that the success of fire fighting is largely dependent upon the water resources of the country, are any steps to be taken in the scheme outlined by the Home Secretary to see that the water resources of the country are fully utilised?

Mr. H. Morrison: That is a matter which is not lost sight of, and it will be necessary, I think, as part of this organisation, to strengthen the Regional organisation as far as water is concerned. On the other hand, I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that the fire brigades have contacts with all sorts of services, and we cannot, as a sort of by-product of this Bill to nationalise fire brigades, use it as a means of nationalising everything else.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Will care be taken in this nationalisation scheme to retain, as largely as possible, the keen services of the localities, the local authorities and the people concerned?

Mr. Morrison: I am very anxious to have at my disposal the experience and knowledge, and the good will and cooperation, of the local authorities, and to that end I propose to set up a consultative


body between us and the local authorities by means of which there can be specific contact with them.

Mr. Thorne: Does it make any difference when the raids are on whether the water in the Thames is low?

Mr. Morrison: I think I had better not answer that question.

Mr. Mathers: Will this new scheme take away the responsibility of, for example, the Minister of Transport for fire fighting on the railways and the Admiralty for fire fighting at the dockyards?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUDOLF HESS.

Mr. Lees-Smith: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any further statement to make with regard to the announcement that Rudolf Hess, the Nazi leader, has landed in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add at present to the statement issued last night by His Majesty's Government, but obviously a further statement will be made in the near future concerning the flight to this country of this very high and important Nazi leader.

Mr. Lawson: In view of the German propaganda statement over the wireless that this gentleman was suffering from mental instability, has the Prime Minister any information to give us on that matter, or is that particular disease limited to the chief of the German propagandists?

The Prime Minister: Obviously, I have not any information at the moment, but after an examination has been made, I will make a further statement.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend consider asking the Minister of Information, if necessary, to see that this piece of news is handled with skill and imagination?

The Prime Minister: I had an opportunity of being in the company of the Minister of Information till a very late hour last night, but I think this is one of these cases where imagination is somewhat baffled by the facts as they present themselves.

Major Vyvyan Adams: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind this "gentleman's" record of devotion to the evil genius of Europe?

The Prime Minister: indicated assent.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: With regard to the Ministry of Information, which has been mentioned, does the Prime Minister consider that it was prudent to announce that Hess was in a Glasgow hospital? Was not that rather unfair on the people of Glasgow, who may now expect a rain of bombs?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps he will not always be in Glasgow.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (ACCOMMODATION ARRANGEMENTS).

The Prime Minster: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity of informing the House that the old House of Commons has been damaged, I think beyond repair, at any rate for a very long time to come. The House will like to be informed that we have already begun the active preparation of a third building in case anything should happen to this one, so that hon. Members may be reassured that the work of our Parliamentary institutions will not be interrupted by enemy action.

Mr. Maxton: Is it not the case that a very considerable part of the Palace of Westminster remains undamaged, and would it not be possible to find accommodation there for the Sittings of the House, even in the House of Peers? It would be very convenient for hon. Members, if it were at all possible, to meet in the place to which they are accustomed.

The Prime Minister: I am informed that the Upper Chamber is still capable of being used, but surely, it is not for us to take it away from the equally historic body to whom it belongs.

Sir William Davison: May I ask whether, in this emergency, it might not be possible for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to get in touch with the Lord Great Chamberlain to see whether some alternative use of the House of Lords could not be made by the House of Lords and the House of Commons?

The Prime Minister: All these matters will be considered.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Lees-Smith: With regard to the Committee stage of the Allied Powers (Maritime Courts) Bill, which is on the Order Paper for the Third Sitting Day, will the Prime Minister take into account the fact that the Bill was issued last week only, that the Second Reading is to-day, and that it might be well to have a longer interval before taking the Committee stage?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be making a statement on that subject which will perhaps resolve some of the doubts, but we are very anxious to get this Measure through. It is a matter of practical urgency for the carrying-on of the war. I should like to have it passed as fast as the House feels able to do so.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Captain Basil Arthur John Peto, for the Borough of Birmingham (King's Norton Division).

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Fourteenth Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 86.]

Fifteenth Report, from the Select Committee brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 88.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Great Western Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill, without Amendment.

Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — ALLIED POWERS (MARITIME COURTS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
It may strike the House, as indeed it struck me, as curious that the Home Secretary should be called upon to deal with a Bill which is really concerned with shipping. This Bill, however, makes certain changes or innovations in constitutional and legal practice, and as it sets up a new jurisdiction and legal machinery, it falls to the Home Secretary to deal with it. It really is the case that, fundamentally, the Bill is intimately connected with the Battle of the Atlantic and is concerned with a vital part of that battle. It has an important relationship with the success of that battle, because it is well known that, in that struggle of the seas, we and our Allies need the use of every available ton of shipping. That means that we and our Allies need the services of every man of seafaring experience and capacity, because the failure of even one man to report for duty on a ship, may have grave consequences in relation to the actual departure of that ship.
I would, therefore, ask the House to deal with the Bill with all possible speed and alacrity, not entirely as a Bill concerned with legal matters and their constitutional repercussions, but as a Bill which aims at securing the maximum use of Allied shipping, in order that we and our Allies may win this battle of the Mercantile Marine and particularly the Battle of the Atlantic. It is the case that the Bill involves a constitutional novelty. It means that in this island are to be set up courts which would be within the jurisdiction not of His Majesty's Government but of foreign Governments. The House, I am sure, freely recognises that those foreign Governments have been compelled by a ruthless, cruel and barbarous enemy to leave their own shores and that, in this country, our Government and Parliament have recognised those foreign Governments and their rights as foreign Governments and have freely given them status accordingly. The House will also recog-

nise that it was right that those Governments should be so treated. Indeed our attitude towards those Allied Powers is in typical and notable contrast with the attitude of the Nazi Government of Germany towards the Governments of those countries which they have either conquered, or won to their side by the signing of some treaty or pact. The foreign Governments which have been made subordinate to the Nazi Government, as a result of the supposedly free signature of pacts or treaties bringing them within the orbit of Nazi diplomacy, are treated as Governments in a servile position, and, generally, with contempt. In the case of this country, the Allied Governments who are enjoying our hospitality are accepted as sovereign Governments and treated with respect as sovereign Governments, in strong contrast with the attitude of the Nazi Government of Germany towards the other Governments I have mentioned.
This brings me to my second point in regard to the exceptional case which exists for this exceptional Bill. My first point was the vital importance of the Battle of the Atlantic. My second point is that this exceptional Bill, which legalises the establishment of courts in this country by foreign Governments, also follows from our association with our Allies. It follows, inevitably, logically and properly from our recognition of those Governments as sovereign Governments, with sovereign powers in respect of their own people and citizens. Therefore, if this Bill is exceptional in character, if it introduces a legal innovation and brings about certain constitutional changes that, indeed, is a compliment to our own people and our own country because we feel that if we recognise these Allied and associated Governments as sovereign Governments, then logically, we must give them the rights of sovereign Governments. Accordingly, the House is being asked to accept what is admittedly an exceptional Measure for those reasons and I am certain that the House will accept the Bill in that spirit.
The Bill is designed to ensure that full use is made of the 6,000,000 dead-weight tons of Allied merchant ships and of the 30,000 Allied officers and men of their Mercantile Marines. This is a considerable mercantile shipping force. It is vitally important to us in the conduct of the mercantile traffic between this


island and America and other parts of the world. Therefore, the Bill puts at the disposal of the Allied Governments the machinery to maintain discipline in their ships and to deal with offences committed on those ships. It is the case now that certain anomalies exist. For example, an Allied seaman committing a serious offence on an Allied ship on the high seas would be subject, I am informed, to no court and no jurisdiction. If he were to commit murder or manslaughter, or larceny, I understand it to be the case that there is no court which could try him, because he would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the British courts if the offence took place on the high seas, and there is no court of his own Government which could function. On the other hand, a British seaman committing a similar offence on a British ship on the high seas would be subject to the jurisdiction of our courts. Therefore the situation is not only anomalous but is, by implication, unfair to the British seaman as compared with the seamen of Allied Powers.
The Bill also requires the nationals of those Allied States to serve on their own ships if that is necessary, and of course similar powers are possessed by the Minister of Labour here in respect of British subjects. I am sure that the House will join with me in paying tribute to the devotion and gallantry of Allied seamen. —[An Hon. Member "And to all seamen."]—Yes, Sir, but this Bill deals with Allied seamen, and I am seeking, if my hon. Friend will permit me, to be relevant to the Measure. These Allied seamen have been away from their homes and their country, and inevitably they have been living a life of some difficulty. Nevertheless, they have played their part, by going to sea and risking their lives, in the common struggle of their. Allies and themselves. Therefore I am confident the House would wish me to say that all of us greatly appreciate their devotion, courage and gallantry in this difficult and vitally important task.
When the Bill passes into law more effective use will be made of the Allied ships, according to the powers which will be given to these maritime courts. The Bill may be regarded as a measure of reciprocity to the Allied Governments for their action in requisitioning their vessels and bringing them into the common effort.

The addition of these ships of the Allied Powers has been a material addition to the Mercantile Marine forces at our disposal. The House will, I think, agree that it would be ungrateful on our part if we were to be difficult in according to these sovereign Governments the rights which sovereign Governments normally possess. If it be the case that these rights must be exercised on our soil, that certainly is not their fault. It is the fault of the cruel, vindictive foe which has driven them from their own country, and we all hope and believe that in due course they will be able to return to their country when the enemy is defeated.
The essential feature of the Bill is to enable Allied Governments to establish maritime courts in this country. For some time these Governments have made strong representations to the Foreign Office through the usual diplomatic channels to this effect. They tell us that in the case of offences against laws or regulations, which all Mercantile Marines, including our own, experience, they are in an impossible position. These Governments have no legal jurisdiction, and they have no courts at their disposal at which such cases can be tried. In consequence, they are unable to enforce the laws of their own countries, and they feel, therefore, that there is a limitation on their usual rights of sovereignty. They have been making representations to the Foreign Office on this matter, and they wish to be granted these powers. Under this Bill, and through the maritime courts, they will be able to try the following offences: Offences committed by aliens on board their merchant-ships; offences committed on their ships by the masters and crews against their merchant-shipping laws; and offences committed by their seafaring nationals in contravention of their conscription laws. The jurisdiction of the maritime courts, which are to be set up, will not, however, extend to British subjects, who will be dealt with by British courts. The Allied Governments are fully in accord with His Majesty's Government on this principle.
It may be the case that people who are not on the face of it obviously British subjects may take the view, or make the claim, that they are British subjects—indeed, in some cases they may be, and there might, therefore, be a risk of mistakes being made. It is not always a


simple thing, as hon. Members who have had experience of these matters know, to decide who is a British subject and who is not, and what particular subject a person may be. The Government have given very careful attention to the insertion of safeguards on this point. Therefore, we have made this provision, namely, that persons required to appear before a maritime court who claim to be British subjects will have the right of appearing before a local tribunal. These local tribunals will be geographically situated and distributed as conveniently as may be. Such persons can appear before these local tribunals and have their claim to be British subjects examined. These tribunals will be British and will be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. All persons will be informed of that right to appear before a tribunal and to have their claim to be a British subject examined.

Mr. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that there are large numbers of people in this country who are not nationals of the Allied Governments or British subjects. How will the Bill apply in those cases?

Mr. Morrison: This provision is for safeguarding the rights of British subjects which is the rightful jurisdiction of this House. If a person claims that he is not a subject of the country with which the maritime court is associated, his case will have to be argued before the maritime court. It cannot be argued before our own British courts, because that is a court with jurisdiction over persons claiming to be British subjects.

Mr. Silverman: So far as I can see, such a person would have no rights before the maritime courts. It is only in a case of a person who claims to be a British subject that the maritime court has no jurisdiction.

Mr. Morrison: Such a person will not have this particular privilege, but he can put his case to the maritime court and claim that it has no jurisdiction in his case. It is a close legal point and perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General may be able to deal with it later on with greater ability than I. All persons are to be informed of that right. It will, of course, be the case that if a person claims to be a British subject, and if for the purposes of this Bill, and for the purposes of this Bill only, he is

declared to be a British subject he will thereby, as regards seafaring law, be subject to the jurisdiction of British courts—otherwise we might reach the position where it would be difficult to put him under the jurisdiction of any court. The machinery provided in the Bill, and the safeguards against the maritime courts exceeding their jurisdiction, have been very carefully and painstakingly considered. They include the following provisions: First, when it is desired by an Allied Government to bring a person before a maritime court, a British justice of the peace must issue process before that person can be brought before a maritime court. Secondly, the new maritime courts cannot review offences, whether they are offences by British subjects or non-British subjects, already dealt with by a British court. If such a court has acquitted, or found guilty, that is the end of it as far as that instance is concerned.
Thirdly, there is an express saving of the jurisdiction of British courts to deal with offences against British law. Fourthly, machinery is provided for application to the High Court when it is alleged that the maritime court has exceeded its jurisdiction. Fifthly, the new courts can only authorise sentences of detention and fine. They cannot go beyond sentences of imprisonment or fines, and there is therefore a limitation of an important character upon their powers. Sixthly, the persons will be kept in British prisons unless the sentence is for more than a year, when a prisoner may be transferred, with the Home Secretary's consent, to any place within the territory of the Power concerned. But clearly it would not be the case that we should transfer a prisoner to territory which was under the control of the enemy. Subject to that understanding, a person with a sentence of more than a year could, with my consent, be transferred to territory within the jurisdiction of the Power concerned, but otherwise he would be kept in a British prison, and of course, he will be subject to the discipline of the British prison and, insofar as there are automatic reductions of sentence as a consequence of good conduct and so on and other matters of like nature, he will be treated in the same way as a British subject in a British prison would be.
The Bill, with these safeguards, which I suggest are considerable, will meet the


just requirements of the Allied Powers and will not unduly limit their sovereignty. There is perhaps one aspect of these legal provisions that I ought to mention, in their application to Scotland. Suitable provision is made in Clause 18 for the modification of the Bill in its application to Scotland. The appointment of tribunals and the making of rules will be in the hands of the Lord Justice-General, and the sheriff takes the place of the justice of the peace and the county court judge. This is a Bill which demonstrates to the point of proof that we intend to treat our Allies and their Governments as full partners, and not to follow the Nazi practice of taking their friends into protective custody. It follows that many of the issues which would arise on the Floor of the House if this were a Bill setting up British courts with a jurisdiction applicable to British subjects, and would quite properly arise, because it was a Bill applying to British subjects and they were British courts to be set up—those meticulous legal arguments which I can appreciate arising properly on such a Bill—are rather out of place on this Measure. Once we concede the point that an Allied Government is a sovereign Government, permitted to exercise a measure of jurisdiction here because the enemy has made it impossible for it to exercise that jurisdiction in its own country, we are, if we start to impose fetters and limitations on those Governments as to how they shall exercise their jurisdiction, beginning to treat them in much the same way as Hitler treats Rumania and Bulgaria, and I am sure that will not be done by the House of Commons.
Therefore I ask the House to accept the Bill on that constitutional basis that it follows logically from the recognition of the sovereign power of those Allied Governments, and, once it is recognised that these Allied Governments are sovereign Governments geographically located in this country it is not for His Majesty's Government meticulously or unnecessarily to interfere with the application of their sovereign powers. Nor indeed should the House of Commons do so, for, if it did, it would be running in the direction of treating those Powers in the same way as Hitler treats nominally independent countries associated with him in the Axis.
My second reason for asking the House to be more tolerant and more speedy about the Bill than it would be about a British Bill applying to British subjects and judicial institutions is that the Battle of the Atlantic is raging, and we have to win it. It is therefore vitally important that every available ship of an Allied Power shall be mobilised in the common cause and the common service. In that vital respect this is a war Measure, a vitally important Measure, which I hope will pass through. But it is important to recognise that it is a Bill which is regularising the position of sovereign Powers in this country, and that one must concede in principle that all sorts of issues—legal rights, constitutional rights, consultation with various bodies—which would quite properly arise in the case of a British Bill are matters between the Allied Governments and their subjects, and not between the British Government and the subjects of a foreign Power.

Mrs. Hardie: Are not the maritime laws of those countries much more severe than the laws that obtain in this country?

Mr. Morrison: That is the business of the foreign country and not, in principle, of the British Government. Once we concede the point that we are accepting these colleagues of ours with full recognition of their political jurisdiction and their sovereign rights, we cannot start controlling the domestic laws of their own country. That is the real principle that is involved. Basically, on all that field of argument, which I can imagine and well understand, the real issue involved is whether we are to treat these Governments in the British way or, to some extent, in the Hitler way. This is vital to the Battle of the Atlantic, and how vital that battle is was indicated by the Prime Minister [Interruption]. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is trying under his breath to be offensive.

Mr. Shinwell: I was not trying to be offensive. I merely said I cannot understand why it should be vital, and I am waiting for an argument to convince me.

Mr. Morrison: I thought I had given the argument to the general satisfaction of the House. I never have too much hope of doing things to the satisfaction of my


hon. Friend, but I will do my best. [Interruption.] I am being perfectly courteous. As to how important this Battle of the Atlantic is, I would quote from the broadcast of the Prime Minister on 27th April:
But how about our lifeline across the Atlantic? What is to happen if so many of our merchant ships are sunk that we cannot bring in the food we need to nourish our brave people? What if the supplies of war material and war weapons which the United States are seeking to send us in such enormous quantities should in large part be sunk on the way? What is to happen then? 
General Smuts, the Prime Minister of South Africa, quite rightly said on the same date:
If Great Britain defeats invasion and keeps her lifeline open, she will have broken Hitler. That is the crux of the war which dominates everything else. In relation to this, all other efforts in the war are side issues.
It is quite clear, I suggest, that if these Governments have no power to require from their citizens similar services in their Mercantile Marine which are broadly, but not: necessarily precisely, analogous to the powers which we have of requiring service from British subjects in the British Mercantile Marine, then the mercantile fleets of these States cannot play the part in the Battle of the Atlantic they otherwise would. It is well known that even a limited number of seamen who do not join a ship when they ought to, or breaches of the law which impede the progress of a ship, may well hold up a ship. That is why, as I have explained, the Bill is so vital in this struggle. I have sought to explain, in the first place, the principles of the Bill, and, in the second place, the broad provisions which are made for the safeguarding of British subjects by the limitations of the powers of the courts; and in view of the nature of the Measure and its purpose I hope that the Bill will commend itself to the House and that it will be passed with all practical speed.

Mr. de Rothschild: Will my right hon. Friend give some information as to the time during which this Bill will be in force? It states at the end that it will remain in force until the expiry of the Emergency Powers Act. Can my right hon. Friend state that this Bill will not be extended any further than is necessary?

Mr. Morrison: Certainly, that will be so. As soon as the Allied Powers can get their

own courts going in their own countries, they would prefer to do so, and so should we. The duration of the Act to which my hon. Friend referred is limited to the duration of the war, so that I can give him a complete assurance on that point.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend clear up a point of interpretation? Suppose a seaman is a man of long residence in this country, perhaps a householder, but he came long ago, perhaps in childhood, from a country which was then part of the territory of one of the Allied nations, or has since become so. How would that case be affected? Would such a man come under this Bill? In other words, what is the test of his nationality, seeing that in many cases the passports of such people are rather nebulous?

Mr. Morrison: I am told by my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General that the book on nationality which this question involves would be a very big book and would necessitate extensive reading and knowledge. I confess, therefore, that I am not competent to answer it. If at the end of the Debate my right hon. and learned Friend can give an answer, I am sure that he will.

Mr. Shinwell: I am advised by the party on this side that this Bill should be accepted without opposition. A loyal member of this party as I am, I naturally accept that decision. I am bound to say, however, that if the arguments had been presented to the party in the form in which they have just been delivered to the House, it is doubtful whether there would have been anything like unanimous acceptance of the Measure. My right hon. Friend has just made a statement of a most profound and far-reaching character. He says that once you accept the sovereignty of an Allied Government, you cannot impose limitations on their actions in this country.

Mr. Morrison: I did not go as far as that. My hon. Friend has said that Allied Governments would have unqualified power, but I did not make an unqualified statement. I said that if you grant them sovereign rights, you must not be over-meticulous in the way in which they are exercised. In any case, we reserve the right as regards any Government, Allied or otherwise, to make diplomatic representations if we see things


going on that we do not like. If you grant the Allied Governments sovereign rights, you must accept the logical conclusion of such a grant, but even this Bill, as I explained, does not give full and unfettered jurisdiction over every subject. It would have been a misrepresentation on my part if I had gone as far as my hon. Friend has interpreted me as having gone.

Mr. Shinwell: I hardly think that my right hon. Friend's qualification affects the argument. He is right in his assumption that once you grant sovereign rights to an Allied Government it is difficult to draw a line of demarcation. If it is once agreed that Allied Governments may establish in this country maritime courts for the purpose of putting on trial recalcitrant seamen, they may equally claim the creation of civil courts for the purpose of trying recalcitrant nationals of any other kind. It will be difficult for my right hon. Friend to resist such representations, and I have not the least doubt that when this Bill is accepted and applied, claims of that kind will be submitted to the Government. Therefore, I say that my right hon. Friend's statement was of a profound and far-reaching character. Indeed, the Measure itself is a complete departure from our constitution and a complete break from old tradition and precedent. There is no precedent for it unless we go far back into mediaeval and pre-mediaeval times. I believe that there was an instance of a high ecclesiastical dignitary demanding what might be called extraterritorial rights in this country. I doubt whether even the extra-territorial rights that we claimed for ourselves in China and Egypt in bygone years ever proceeded as far as the sovereign rights claimed by Allied Maritime Governments in this matter.
What is the object of the Bill? My right hon. Friend said that it is vital for the Battle of the Atlantic, and that was the reason I ventured to offer an interjection. I listened with interest to the quotations which my right hon. Friend read from the broadcasts of the Prime Minister and General Smuts. I agree that the Battle of the Atlantic is itself vital, but no one supposes that an occasional case of murder on the high seas in a foreign-going vessel owned by one of the Allied countries and the difficulty of trying the person concerned or of imposing

sentence on him are vital to the Battle of the Atlantic. My right hon. Friend contradicted himself, because, as he pointed out, the Bill provides for no more than detention and fine. If there is a case of murder on the high seas and you do not know what to do with the person concerned because there is no country to take him to except this, there is only power of detention and fine. The courts cannot impose the capital sentence, because the Bill does not give the power. What, then, is the precise purpose of the Bill? It is to impose more rigid discipline on foreign citizens employed by Allied countries to make certain the smooth running of their ships. That is the purpose, and no more than that.
All the powers in this Measure for the purpose of imposing that discipline are already in operation. Many of the powers are embodied in the merchant shipping laws of this country. There is already power to deal with British citizens, but there is also power to deal with foreign seamen who are troublesome on board ship in dock. If a foreign seaman gets drunk and assaults the chief mate or the second engineer, he can be taken ashore by a British policeman and dealt with by a court of summary jurisdiction in this country. There is no difficulty at all there. But we are now operating under the Defence of the Realm Act and are in a quite different situation. If my right hon. Friend wants the necessary powers I will give him the powers—out of his own mouth, or out of the Government's mouth. I will read the relevant passage from the Defence of the Realm Regulations:
No person lawfully engaged to serve on board any ship to which this Regulation applies shall neglect or refuse without reasonable cause to join his ship or to proceed to sea in his ship or desert or be absent without leave from his ship or be absent without leave from his duty at any time.
I stop there to point out that those are the offences to which my right hon. Friend has directed attention. It is those offences which are perhaps vital to the Battle of the Atlantic; not murder on the high seas, or petty larceny, but the possibility that at a critical moment men may refuse to join their ships or desert and thus hold up the ship. I digress to ask how many such cases have actually been reported to the Government, because obviously if there are only a limited number it would not be worth while to


promote this Measure? There are additional offences. For example, if a person on board ship is in a state of drunkenness, so that the performance of his duty is neglected and the navigation of the ship is impeded, he can be brought within the scope of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. To which seamen does the Regulation I have quoted apply? The ships to which it applies are:—
Every ship belonging to His Majesty, and every ship, whether British or foreign, chartered or requisitioned by or on behalf of His Majesty.
Every ship. I observe that my hon. Friend is shaking his head in disapproval.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I only wish to point out that ships chartered or requisitioned by the Government do not include the ships with which this Bill is primarily concerned.

Mr. Shinwell: Now that makes confusion worse confounded. Surely the Bill is not so limited in character. Surely we do not propose to grant sovereign rights, with all embellishments, to these Allied Governments for the purpose only of dealing with ships not requisitioned by His Majesty's Government, because it would be interesting to know how many Allied ships have not been requisitioned by us under the charter arrangements. Does the right hon. Member know anything about it? Apparently not. He referred to 6,000,000 dead weight tons. That is the first time that figure has ever been made public. Now it has been made public by a Minister of the Crown that the Allied shipping at our disposal is 6,000,000 tons dead weight—which is not 6,000,000 gross tonnage, but never mind about that. It is very interesting to know that this Bill is not intended to deal with a few vessels un requisitioned but to deal, as he will concede, with all ships that come under the ownership of shipowners in Allied countries and all the ships that have been taken over by the Government. We need not argue about that at all. Therefore, my first point is that all the offences which are likely to occur on board Allied ships can be dealt with without recourse to a Measure of this kind by the Defence of the Realm Act.
There was no occasion for this Measure, except this—to satisfy the amour propre of our Allies. The Allied Governments made

representations to the British Government to be allowed to deal with their own nationals in their own way and in their own courts on British soil. The British Government, not for technical reasons, because really there are no technical reasons involved, but for reasons of courtesy, perhaps, or because representations have proved too strong, now want to mollify the Allied Governments, and this Measure comes before us. I am with my right hon. Friend all the way, 100 per cent., in my desire to promote the successful prosecution of the war. I may even say 101 per cent., because I go 1 per cent, better than the Government, in that I want to see a more vigorous prosecution of the war. I would not impede the progress of the Government in any way. If they regard a Measure of this kind as being essential to induce more vigour, and as likely to achieve success in our war effort, by all means let them have it, but we must be careful not to give to the Allied Governments, however useful they be, powers which are a departure from our Constitution, are without precedent and may have far-reaching consequences. We have to decide when we are going to stop, whether we shall stop here, or allow these Governments to come along later with further applications, asking for the right to deal with all their nationals, and, indeed, to have civil courts set up in this country.
Having disposed of the principle, I want to say a few words about the provisions of the Measure. Apparently there has been no consultation with the Foreign Seamen's Union. I made inquiries about it. If there have been consultations I should like to know what was the result. If the Allied Governments are to be consulted, and if, possibly, the shipowners were consulted, why not consult these 30,000 foreign officers and men and give them an opportunity of saying whether they want to be tried by courts under the jurisdiction of their own Governments or by British courts? They ought to have been consulted. That was the reason why my right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) asked that the Committee stage should be deferred for a few days longer. It was to get an opportunity of consulting the foreign seamen and at the same time promoting useful Amendments. I hope that the suggestion will be received favourably.
I have already said that the usual offences aboard ship with which it is intended to deal are of the kind referred to in the Defence of the Realm Regulation, but in fact the offences which occur aboard ship are usually to be ascribed to difficulties about wage rates and labour conditions. Let me give an example. There has been a good deal of trouble, and it is no longer secret, with the seamen on Allied vessels because of wage difficulties. When the ships were originally chartered by the British Government at the beginning of the war, freight rates were very high, and the arrangement made was very remunerative to foreign shipowners, and seamen, Norwegian, Dutch and so on, managed to secure very high rates of pay, compared with the rates of pay operating in this country. It has been said that some of these seamen received as much as £50 a month, while rates in this country, even with war risks, were no more than about £15 a month. These rates have been reduced very considerably since, and quite properly. We have no desire that variable rates shall operate as between the different classes of ship. It would be most invidious if Allied seamen were being paid higher rates than British seamen, or vice versa We want to have more or less uniform rates, having regard to certain factors.
The kind of offence which is most usual is that which arises from difficulty about wages, not so much the standard wage, as overtime rates and extra payment for certain kinds of work done aboard ship, particularly when the vessel is in dock. If men are to be brought before their own courts and not before a British court by ship owners, the prosecution will always take place at the instance of the shipowner or shipmaster on an issue of wages or labour conditions, it seems to me that any lowering or worsening of the conditions of the foreign seamen will have a detrimental effect on the wages and conditions of British seamen. Everybody knows that, in such circumstances, one set of wages and conditions is used against another set. If we are able to say some months hence that the wages on certain ships have been reduced or that conditions have been worsened, it will be the easiest thing in the world to impose the same kind of conditions upon British seamen. Therefore, and as a safeguard, I make a

suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman which I hope will be accepted, although it may not be possible to embody my suggestion in the provisions of the Bill.
We ought to secure an assurance that, just as we have a National Maritime Board for the purpose of regulating the wages and conditions of British seamen, so we ought to have a maritime board for Allied seamen, and the wages and conditions decided upon by this board should be closely co-ordinated with the wages and conditions imposed by the National Maritime Board. I hope that we shall be able to get some assurance before the Committee stage of the Bill. I do not think it is possible to embody this suggestion in the Bill, but we ought to have an assurance of that kind. I am anxious, much as I am also anxious to improve our shipping position and to win the Battle of the Atlantic, to improve the wages and conditions of British seamen, who are undergoing great risks and enduring great privations.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: As a means of winning the battle.

Mr. Shinwell: Yes. There is another matter. Are these courts to be held in public or in camera? British courts are always open to the public. It would be a point to be seriously considered if these Allied Governments were able to constitute maritime or any other kind of courts where the proceedings were not available to the general public. I hope we shall be able to get also an assurance of this kind; otherwise we may require to put an Amendment on the Paper in order to secure that the proceedings of the courts be in public. I hope that the Solicitor-General does not demur to that suggestion. There is no valid reason why-it should not be accepted. If Allied Governments want to establish their own courts in this country and do not want anybody to know what, they are doing, it is a serious matter.
Arising from that matter, I should like to know whether measures will be taken to provide for the defence of the men. I understand that the men are to be subject to the law of the particular countries concerned. I do not know what the practice is in those countries. My right hon. and learned Friend knows, of course, much more about these matters than I do, but let us assume that a Norwegian


seaman is brought before the Norwegian maritime court. He needs legal defence. Will he be entitled to call upon a British lawyer or must he go to a Norwegian lawyer? It occurred to me when I saw this Bill for the first time, which was last Thursday, that the main reason for the Bill might be that there are in this country Norwegian, Dutch and Greek lawyers who have had to leave their own countries and are very anxious to find employment. [Laughter.] Well, probably that is an ignoble suggestion, and I do not press it, but it just occurred to me; no more than that. At any rate, I want to be assured that these Allied seamen can call upon British lawyers; after all, there is no reason why we should not assist our own legal profession to obtain employment also. I hope that we shall be assured that men concerned may be defended by British lawyers.
There is one point which has given me a good deal of trouble. Let us assume that, in one of these Allied maritime courts, a man is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 12 months for what might be regarded in a British court as a minor offence. It often happens on a coal-fired vessel that somebody in the stokehold does not like the language of some other person, or somebody may be in his cups and, disliking certain language or a certain threat, may seek to protect himself. He may be charged with assault and, under this Measure, would be arraigned before the Norwegian maritime court. He would probably be sentenced to 12 months' or 2 years' imprisonment. It would be most invidious to find next day that a British marine fireman from a British vessel had been sent to prison for only 30 days for a similar act, and we should have a great deal of controversy immediately as to whether the Allied maritime courts were not more severe than the British courts. That would be a most undesirable position. We need some kind of assurance that sentences will be of a maximum character, so far as possible, and related to British criminal law. I do not propose to proceed further than that, but I hope these observations will not be regarded as irrelevant, because they seem to me to be most important. To begin with, this Bill seems to be quite unnecessary except for the purpose of mollifying the Allied Governments. All the powers applied for are embodied in the Defence Regulations,

and if the Government insist on proceeding with the Bill, if they feel that it ought to be done and will help with the war effort, I offer no objections. But I do want these necessary safeguards embodied in the Bill, and I hope the Government will not press the Bill forward too quickly.

Mr. Goldie: I must confess that when I received my copy of this Bill I was completely misled by the title—"The Allied Powers (Maritime Courts) Bill"—and I, for one, expected to find on perusing this Measure that it was in fact an attempt by friendly Powers to set up admiralty courts in this country. I read the Bill carefully, and I confess that I have considerable misgivings about it, but, unlike the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), I was completely satisfied by the opening speech of the Home Secretary. I realise to the full the necessity for the Bill, and without any hesitation whatever I shall support it. But the right hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that undoubtedly constitutional changes are involved, and I feel that I should be failing in my duty if on this, one of the rare occasions on which I have addressed the House, I did not draw attention to one or two features which I seriously think are worthy of consideration.
This is the first Bill which has come before the House in which, quite unintentionally, we may be prejudicing the position of friendly aliens. Let me explain what I mean. I would ask the House to take their minds back to those early days in September, beginning on the very day when war was declared, when for some six weeks, day by day and night by night, we sacrificed in our own cause the personal rights of the citizens of this country. It was our duty so to do, and I remember how in those very early days the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) and the hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Howard Gritten) took points which were obviously meant to be helpful but which in my view seemed captious. We sacrificed an enormous amount of the interests and constitutional rights of British subjects for the war cause. To-day it seems to me that the real danger in this Bill is that we are going to deprive the friendly alien of the fundamental right of extradition.
I notice that in the Explanatory Memorandum the matters with which the Bill


deals are divided under three headings. I personally have no criticisms whatever to make with regard to (b):
Offences committed by the master or members of the crew of a merchant ship of that Power in contravention of the merchant shipping law of that Power.
and (c):
Offences committed by a person who is a national of that Power, and a seafaring person. …
But I think that exactly the same end as is sought under (a) might have been obtained by requesting Allied Governments to extend the jurisdiction of our own courts. I see that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) who, like myself, has had considerable experience of the Northern Circuit, agrees with me. We have had experience after experience there of offences committed within territorial waters by foreign seamen. They are brought in to Liverpool and are tried at the Liverpool Assizes. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General will correct me if I am wrong, but I think there is a Section in one of the Acts which makes all criminal offences committed by British seamen triable at the Central Criminal Court in London. But what happens here? The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said that there is no court at all, so far as one can see, in which a man guilty of an offence on the high seas can be tried. I must confess that it is rather a shock to me to find that in the case of murder committed on the high seas, as the hon. Member for Seaham said, the man is brought back to this country, and instead of being tried by the criminal jurisdiction of this country and sentenced to death, as I should prefer, he is brought to this country and tried before a court in the jurisdiction of his own country and possibly sentenced only to imprisonment or to a fine. There is an extraordinary anomaly. Assuming for the moment that something goes wrong and the man has been tried at a court of criminal jurisdiction of this country and sentenced to death, the punishment already inflicted upon him will have to be taken into consideration.
My point, therefore, is that the effect of this Bill could have been better obtained if the friendly Powers had been told that here at their disposal was the great criminal jurisdiction of this country and

that they should not hesitate to use it. Under this Bill, however—and I put this criticism forward in a friendly spirit—we are saying that we will hand over their own subjects to them. What becomes of the whole basis of extradition in this country? What would have happened in the past? Let us assume for a moment that a man committed a serious criminal offence on the high seas, on a foreign ship, and worked his way back to this country. Extradition proceedings would have been instituted at once in order to bring within the jurisdiction of the foreign Power the man who was an alleged criminal. At one time, the senior Metropolitan Magistrate at Bow Street spent much of his time with writs of Habeas Corpus in order to determine whether or not an alien should be handed over to a foreign court. But under this Bill, if the unfortunate alien lands somewhere on our coast, the village policeman issues a summons for the man to appear at a foreign court. It is indeed a big constitutional change, and that is why I venture to point out that, whether we like it or not, under this Bill we are to a certain extent prejudicing the position of friendly aliens.

The Solicitor - General (Sir William Jowitt): I am sorry, but I do not quite follow the hon. and learned Member. To where does he think we could extradite a Norwegian who has committed a murder on the high seas? To what country could we extradite him for trial?

Mr. Goldie: I do not mean extradition in that sense. What I was suggesting is this: Instead of the procedure by summons issued by a local magistrate, there should be proceedings in the nature of extradition before one of our own courts before the man is handed over to a foreign court. That is the point I wish to suggest for the Solicitor-General's consideration. Apart from that, however, I can see no difficulty in the point raised by the hon. Member for Seaham. I happen to be a member of the Bar Council, and as one who has had some experience, I do not think that there will be the slightest difficulty about barristers and solicitors appearing in these foreign tribunals. For years past what has in fact happened in this country is that many counsel—myself included—have had the honour of being briefed, and firms of solicitors have regularly instructed counsel


in the ports on behalf of the various parties.

Mr. Shinwell: As I understand, these courts would come under the law of the country concerned?

Mr. Goldie: Yes.

Mr. Shinwell: There is, of course, the language difficulty.

Mr. Goldie: Yes.

Mr. Shinwell: I do not see, therefore, how the British powers will be able to emerge.

Mr. Goldie: My hon. Friend has less faith in the interpretative powers of the police force than I have. He has not enjoyed the privilege that I have had, of listening to the interpretation of many languages in the courts. I think we can safely trust to the police on that matter. The test, to my mind, is: Does this or does it not, assist us in the prosecution of the war? The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has said that it is required for that purpose, and for that purpose only. When I am assured by the Home Secretary that it is necessary I realise that, when we British subjects have had to make considerable sacrifices of our legal rights, the least we can do is to ask aliens to realise that they must come on to the same basis as ourselves. Since the Home Secretary has shown the necessity for the Bill, I, for one, give it my support

Mr. Mander: I support the Second reading of the Bill. I think the Home Secretary made a perfectly clear case for it. But there are certain aspects upon which something will have to be done, I think, to protect the rights of all the persons concerned. I agree that, having given diplomatic status and things of that kind, to our Allies over here, we cannot cut at the root of that recognition and say that for certain purposes they must not be allowed to exercise the freedom which they would have had in their own country. The Home Secretary spoke of "States to whom we have given full sovereign rights." Let us be clear about that. We have not given full sovereign rights to Free France, but I take it they will come in on the same basis as the Powers to whom we have given full sovereign rights, and that there will be no differentiation between one Ally and another. In some cases, the Governments

are provisional. Those which would appear to qualify at the present time are Norway, Belgium, Holland, Free France, Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, and, I suppose, under certain circumstances, our Allies, Egypt, Iraq and Turkey might also qualify, in view of the fact that they are on the sea. I notice that the term "Allied and Associated Powers" is used. I should like some explanation as to the precise significance of that term. I can imagine what it is. There is a vacant chair left for some important friend who might be coming from over the water at a later date—a possibility that we ought to provide for. However, some explanation might be given about it.
The main weakness of the Bill seems to me to be this: In the case of a British subject, he comes before a British court, and is dealt with by that court; but the position of an allied subject who comes before a court may be different. I think the Governments over here at present are doing their very best to be just and reasonable. I know there have been a certain amount of criticism, but I do not believe it is well-based. I think that, for instance the Poles, whatever their history may have been before the war, have at present a very broad-based and representative Government, as far as they can possibly get one together in present circumstances, and that they have at their head, in General Sikorsky, a man with a very progressive outlook, who is anxious to see justice done to every section of the Polish community, irrespective of creed or race. I believe that the same thing applies to the other Governments, too. But you may have a subject brought before, say, a Polish court, who says that he is a Czech or a German or a Russian, or that he belongs to some other foreign State. Who is to decide? As I understand, at present it is the court before whom a person is hailed that makes that decision. That does not seem to me a fair way of dealing with the issue. I imagine that there will be very few disputed cases, because I believe that the Governments intend to make as little trouble as they can, and that they will not insist on any case where there is even an equitable ground, let alone a legal one, for releasing the claim against the person concerned. But I think you will need some court of appeal. It will have to be not altogether a British court, but an inter-Allied court, to decide between one Allied subject and another.

Mr. Goldie: As I understand, under Clause 2 any person other than a British subject can be tried. That is to say, if an offence is committed in a Polish ship by a Czech subject, he can be tried in a Polish court, and vice versa. The Clause is not limited in any way in respect of persons who are not British subjects. It refers to:
any act or omission committed by any person on board a merchant ship of that Power

Mr. Mander: That requires very searching investigation. I do not see why these courts should have power to try any persons but their own nationals. I think that if there is a dispute about nationality, it would be better for it to go to an Allied court of appeal. If you are to carry out the spirit of the arrangement made with our Allies at present, that must be done. The point was raised as to the type of offences and punishments which foreign legislation on these matters provides for. The Home Secretary said that that was entirely a matter for the foreign Governments concerned. I agree, but I think that, in all the circumstances, it would be reasonable for us to ask for information as to what the practice is, so that we can see for ourselves the sort of sentences that would be given. I do not think that any Allied Government could possibly take exception to a request for information, seeing that the House of Commons is being asked to legislate. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be good enough, at some stage, to give the House information on that point. I presume that the courts will sit at the ports; and that the appeal courts, if there are any, will sit at the ports, too. It seems to me that the action we are taking is perfectly justified for carrying on the war, and that if we can avoid dangers which have been pointed out we shall be taking a step which some of us have been advocating for some time past, by associating together our Allies in some common body. It has been suggested that there should be a Joint Allied Council. That seems very desirable. Here there seems an opportunity for some kind of joint tribunal, for deciding these cases is going to be extraordinarily difficult if the Bill goes through in its present form.

Mr. David Adams: I am very glad to support the Second Reading of this Measure, subject to certain important considerations being given to the Bill in

Committee. It is certainly desirable to have consultations with foreign seamen's associations, and the Home Secretary should have little difficulty in arranging such consultations. I am certain, from my personal knowledge, that these associations would be most anxious to lend their best support to the progress of the campaign and therefore to the handling of these foreign vessels to the best possible advantage. There does not appear to be, as has been mentioned, an adequate court of appeal. There is an appeal, subject to the initial court consenting, to a higher court. That is a very qualified liberty, and it ought to be made clear that in reasonable cases the first court shall not be in a position to refuse further consideration of a case. I myself have been a very strong advocate of adequate appeal courts owing to my experience of the mining industry, in which we had the umpire acting as the final court of appeal. Incidentally, there ought to be a further appeal against his decision, but nothing of the sort exists. But in this case we would certainly remove a grievance by making a court of appeal obtainable by those, who, in a reasonable situation, desired to take advantage of it.
We have been informed that all the powers are contained in the Defence of the Realm Act or in the Merchant Shipping Act in this country. If that be so, I can only say that shipowners on the North-East coast appear to be ignorant of the same. During the week-end some of our leading shipowners have advised me that they have had great trouble in sailing Allied ships which they are managing on account of the truculent outlook,of many of the foreign seamen, who have given an undertaking, often in writing, although they have not signed the articles, to sail in a particular ship. The shipowner informed me that when they came aboard a Danish vessel they were fearsome, and asked, "Is there a Danish captain on the ship? "He said," No, an English captain", and they replied, "All right, we will not sail"—a very arbitrary and unreasonable attitude to adopt. I have heard of foreign engineers who have actually signed the articles in regard to these Allied vessels using every device, reasonable and unreasonable, not to sail in the vessel. In some cases ships have been held up for a whole week, and others, having lost the convoy, have been held up for a further


period. I am certain that if this Bill enables shipowners to deal with cases of this character, they will be able to save a very considerable amount of what is to-day lost tonnage. I have heard shipowners state that a lot of the trouble is due to the very large advances that are granted to seamen before a vessel sails— sometimes as much as 10. The temptation is too great; the men become inebriated and do not join the ship at all, and so it is held up. That, of course, is a private matter which might be dealt with by the National Maritime Board. If that is a cause of delays in vessels sailing, some better steps ought to be taken to handle that financial matter.
The question has very properly arisen as to whether, in view of the powers which we are to give to Allied Governments to deal with their nationals, there may not be a tendency for them to pay lower wages than those which are prevailing at the present time. I am sure that Allied seamen are without exception under as good conditions as or even better than British seamen under agreements made by the National Maritime Board, which governs the wages and conditions of the British seamen. But there might be a tendency, as you confer greater powers on these Allied Governments, for them to be tempted to pay less wages. That is a point that might very well be cleared up, or some assurance should be given to the Home Secretary by these Governments that they will undertake that conditions are no worse and the wages paid no less than those prevailing in all British ships. I believe that, apart from the matter of prosecutions, the very existence of such an Act will have a very salutary effect. At the present time, whether it be well founded or not, these aliens believe that they can be entirely independent and can come and go and break their undertakings without let or hindrance. The very fact that there is an Act which will enable them to be brought before their own courts will have a most salutary effect. For a considerable time, personal friends of mine who are shipowners have asked whether something could not be done by the respective Governments in the nature of a police force to compel these men to adopt a more rational outlook, clearly showing that such an Act is essential.
Another matter that ought to be cleared up is whether there is the power to trans-

port persons from this country and from our prison regime who may be sentenced to a period of more than 12 months' imprisonment. Is not that a really extraordinary power to be asking for in this Measure? Perhaps we shall learn the particular reason for that course. I think these were the main points with which I was anxious to deal, but I know of my own personal knowledge of the North-East coast that this has been a matter of the gravest concern. Vessels have been held up for a considerable period, quite unreasonably, and it may be that this Bill will end the disabilities which are being suffered. Everyone knows that these foreign vessels are manned by foreign seamen, masters and engineers. There may be an all-British crew, but there is a feeling growing that no vessel should be permitted to sail unless it is manned exclusively, from the master down to the cabin boy, by its own nationals. That is a most unreasonable attitude to adopt and will hinder us in the great Battle of the Atlantic which was properly referred to by the Home Secretary as paramount if we are to preserve the life-line of this country.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I think the last speaker has made it clear that there is need for some legislation at this time to deal with the very difficult problem that has arisen. But I think it has also been made quite clear, by what previous speakers have said, that it would be most desirable that the Government should be willing to postpone the Committee stage to a little later date than the date which has been suggested, so that the various points raised by different speakers can be adequately considered and possible Amendments to the Bill considered very carefully by the Government. It would be very regrettable, in view of the importance of the principle of the Bill, that it should be rushed through in a few days. This problem has not arisen during the last fortnight or three weeks. It must have been exercising the mind of the Government and Allied Governments for some considerable time, and surely it should be possible to postpone for two or three days longer the Committee stage of the Bill in order to take into careful consideration the very important points which have been raised in the course of the Debate. I do not want to go over


the ground which has already been covered and dealt with so adequately, but I feel that we as a House ought to realise that this Measure—so technical—raises a very big principle. We are according to foreign Powers under the terms of this Measure the rights of jurisdiction not only over their own subjects but over others, not British subjects. The consequence of that may be very serious, apart from the important legal questions involved. We are also allowing British subjects to be fined and imprisoned for three months for contempt of a foreign court held in this country. That kind of thing is a new principle, and I think it ought to be possible, even if it is necessary to have the principle of this Measure accepted with regret as a war-time necessity, in view of the urgent claims of war conditions, to meet a number of the objections to the details of the Measure.
In particular, I hope the Government will consider a modification of Clause 2, Sub-section (1) (a).Surely it is desirable that if these courts are established, the rights of non-nationals of a country concerned, who are not British subjects, should be safeguarded. I do not wish to use the name of any country, because I do not wish to cause any ill-feeling, but, let us say, a Ruritanian court might try an American citizen who happened to be on board a ship belonging to Ruritania and condemn that citizen to a long sentence of imprisonment. I think that is an undesirable thing.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Colonel Llewellin): If countries like Norway and Holland had their own countries In which their courts could operate, that is the very thing they could do. If the hon. Gentleman or, I went on a trip on a Dutch ship, and either of us misbehaved ourselves, we should be liable to be tried by a Dutch court, and we are merely saying to these countries that they can now exercise, in the hospitality of our shores, what, if they had not been overrun by the Germans, they could have continued to do in their own countries. That is really all the Bill does, except that, as is being done in this country, we have excluded British citizens from their jurisdiction although, formerly, if they had been on a ship they would have been within that jurisdiction.

Mr. Harvey: I quite recognise that a good case can be made out on those lines, but looking at the technical position I think my right hon. and gallant Friend will see that the position is a difficult one. It may be that an American student is engaged temporarily as a sailor, as many are during their holidays. He may happen to be engaged on a boat which is suddenly involved in war by the aggression of the German Government. Technically he is a sailor, although he does not want to continue so, for understandable reasons. He intended to join for only a short period and had no intention of going into the war. He could be dealt with under this Clause of the Bill by the court of the country concerned and given a severe sentence for desertion or attempted desertion. I know personally of a case of another citizen of a friendly State, not an American, who might have been in that position. He went on to a boat temporarily as a sailor, and war came along. That sort of case ought to be carefully provided for. We are not dealing with the position as it would be in time of peace. We are making a very great concession of principle to our friends in the Allied Governments in passing this Measure, and it is not too much to ask them in turn to make some concession to meet the real difficulties that many of us feel might come about if this Measure is passed as it stands.

Colonel Llewellin: Really, that position can never arise, because all the Powers concerned are Allies of ours and are in the war.

Mr. Harvey: Perhaps my right hon. and gallant Friend has not quite seen the point. This Clause deals, not just with the subjects of Allied Powers, but with any non-British person, whether his State is in the war or not, and I ask that the Government should consider this point and see if it is possible during the Committee stage to make some alteration which would further protect those persons who are not citizens or subjects of the Power in question.

Colonel Llewellin: I think we are at cross-purposes. I was dealing with the case which my hon. Friend put of somebody of a neutral country going on to a ship and unfortunately finding while he was engaged on a voyage that that country was at war. That cannot happen to any


of the Powers under this Bill, because they are already with us in the war. The only thing that it could apply to is if an American or a citizen of some other country were to desert in the ordinary way before completing his voyage, and I do not see why he should not be just as much tried for that if he went on such a ship as if he was on a British ship.

Mr. Harvey: I do not want to press that matter further, but there is one other point to which I ask the Government to give attention. It is important that there should be an opportunity to consider these questions before we reach the Committee stage. I think the Clause relating to offences by British subjects is one that will need further consideration, and I hope care will be taken to see that, in any provision that is made to establish the rights of nationality, protection is given to persons who have been in this country for a long time and who have retained, perhaps simply because of poverty, the nationality of their country of: origin, but who are to all intents and purposes British subjects, having ceased to have any connection with their country of origin. At present the Bill affords no protection to persons of that sort, and that is, in effect, a serious injustice.

Mr. Silverman: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recommended the Bill to the House on two broad grounds of principle. He said, first, that we could not win the Battle of the Atlantic without the Bill, and secondly, that any other method of dealing with the situation with which the Bill proposes to deal would be imitating Hitler. If I thought that my right hon. Friend had established either one of those propositions, I should take a very different view of the Bill from that which I take, but I think he totally failed to establish either. Obviously, our effort in the Battle of the Atlantic would be considerably weakened if there were no power to enforce discipline on these ships, but I think it has been amply shown throughout the Debate that there is power under the Merchant Shipping Act and the Defence Regulations, and if there were any doubt about this, there was nothing to prevent the Government from introducing a short Bill applying the Merchant Shipping Act and the Defence Regulations to the sailors on these ships in exactly the

same way and to exactly the same extent as they apply already to British sailors. Had the matter been dealt with in that way, no question of principle would have arisen, and no kind of opposition could have been offered by any reasonable person.
When my right hon. Friend said that to deal with the matter in any other way would be to imitate Hitler to some extent, I cannot help thinking that his controversial enthusiasm simply ran away with him. That claim which he made simply has no meaning—the position is to the contrary if anything. I invite my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who is, I understand, to reply to the Debate, to say whether I am wrong in stating that it has always been fundamental in our constitution and in the British approach to questions of law and citizenship that once a man lands on the soil of this country he is subject to our laws and courts, and to nothing else. Why is slavery not recognised in our courts? There was a time when it was said that it ought to be, and that when a man who was legally and properly, according to the laws of his country, a slave in his own country, if he escaped and landed on these shores he ought to retain the status of a slave. Our courts would not have that proposition. They said that when such a person landed on our soil, he had no status, and could not have any status that was not recognised by our law. That appears to me to be a fundamental principle. It might be that if the circumstances necessitated it we should have to make inroads upon that principle, but no case has been made out for making any inroads upon it.
The Home Secretary said that if we recognise these Governments as sovereign Governments, then, logically, we must not curtail their sovereign powers. I am certain my right hon. Friend did not mean what he said; he could not possibly have meant it. Are we to allow these Allied Governments to set up schools in this country and to teach their own languages in those schools? Are we to allow them to set up their own courts to administer their own municipal law on their own citizens or nationals who happen to be here? Are we to give them the right to raise revenue and to impose taxes upon their nationals? All these are necessary and logical parts of sovereignty, and if they are denied those powers, then we are


to that extent limiting the sovereignty which we recognise. I do not know anybody in the House who would readily afford any one of those powers to any one of these Governments. Why not? Because we have not recognised them as sovereign Powers for that purpose on our soil. What we have said is that since they have been driven out of their own countries, we shall not allow that act of aggression by Hitler or by Mussolini to interfere with our diplomatic recognition of them as the lawful sovereign authority in their own country. Our recognition goes no further than that, and it could not and ought not to do so.
The true ground for passing Measures of this kind, or like the Allied Forces Act, which is the only near parallel to this Measure, is necessity, or if not necessity, convenience. We do not do it because we say that, once we have recognised them as sovereign Powers, we have to give them full sovereign authority on our soil over their own nationals. We have never said any such thing, and I think the Foreign Office would be horrified by any suggestion that we should. I feel certain that my right hon. Friend simply allowed his controversial enthusiasm to run away with his very loquacious and eloquent tongue. We do not recognise the sovereignty of these Governments in anything like that full sense. Any special powers which we give them have to be justified, and so far always have been justified, by convenience and necessity. It seems to me that to act in the way in which we are asked to act now is really not so much a logical recognition of the implications of their sovereignty. Actually, it is a derogation of our own. The Bill preserves—I suppose we must be thankful for it—the powers of British courts to apply British laws to British citizens or anyone else who happens to be here. It is no longer an exclusive right and an exclusive jurisdiction.
One of the points which I invite the Government to consider between now and the Committee stage is whether that Clause which preserves the jurisdiction of British courts ought not to be strengthened so that any offences committed, which are already by our own laws triable by British courts, shall not, under this Bill, be triable by any other courts. I suggest in all earnestness to the Government that they could do that without in any way militat-

ing against any of the purposes which it is intended by this Bill to serve. If the Government say that they need this Bill because without it offences may be committed by persons and no one has any control over them, that is a good ground for having some such measure, but there is no ground whatever for giving away any powers which our own courts now have, or exercising them by the courtesy of any other jurisdiction or parallel jurisdiction of any other court. Why cannot we amend that Clause to make certain that no powers are given to any Allied Government where at the moment sufficient powers are already exercised at our own courts?
Profoundly as I dislike this Bill, I recognise that it will probably go through, and therefore I should like to try and improve it constructively. The other point with which I wish to deal is the question of those who are neither nationals of any Allied Government nor British subjects. When the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss E. Rathbone) intervened during the speech of the Home Secretary, I thought her question was treated rather lightly. Take the practical cases which have already occurred in the operation of the Allied Forces Act. They can apply equally in the case of this Measure. Indeed, they apply more so under this Bill because this Bill gives powers to Allied Governments to conscript seamen, whereas the Allied Forces Act carefully avoided giving them any powers to conscript men for the Army. Take the case of a man born in Galicia, in 1914. At that time Galicia was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. That man was an Austro-Hungarian citizen. That man came to this country, and lived here for a long time. He may have come to this country as a baby. In 1914 Austro-Hungarian nationality disappeared—there is no longer any such thing. Galicia became part of Poland, but all the people living in Galicia or originating from there did not automatically become Polish subjects. Such persons only became Polish subjects if they so elected on or before the date specified by the laws of Poland. None of the people for whom I am now speaking did or ever will so elect for reasons which may be good or bad which I do not propose to discuss here. That man is no longer an Austro-Hungarian subject. He is not a Pole, and he is not


a British subject. He is stateless, and there are thousands of such people in this country. There is nothing in the world to prevent the Polish Government from conscripting these people under this Bill for the Polish maritime service.
Lest anyone should imagine that I am raising a purely theoretical difficulty which would never arise in practice, let me assure my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General that such cases have already arisen in large numbers, under the Allied Forces Act, where there is no power to conscript at all. What was said there was, "We are not seeking to conscript. The Allied Forces Act gives us power over members of our Forces and we are exercising that power" It needed a very great deal of pressure from this House and outside to get that position rectified. I suggest that there ought to be something in this Bill to make sure that it does not apply to people of this kind. Let me state another case. I have been dealing with people born in those countries and coming to this country at an early age. Let me give another type of case, namely, that of a man born in Vienna who is of Polish parentage. This is an actual case of which I sent particulars to the Secretary of State for War under the other Act. I am not sure that that man was not born in Poland and taken to Vienna at a very early age. At any rate, he lived the whole of his life in Vienna, did not know a word of Polish, had never returned to Poland, had no friends in Poland, no relatives in Poland, and had no communications with Poland of any kind.
There came a time, however, when the Germans invaded Austria and transported across Europe thousands of Polish-born persons and deposited them in a kind of no-man's land between Prussia and the Polish frontier. The Poles refused to admit them, and they were right. They said that these people were not their citizens, that they had no obligation towards them, and that they were not going to lend themselves to support acts of Nazi policy in this matter. There they were for nine months, without houses, food, medical attention or anything. One of these men ultimately escaped and came to this country. After some months, under the Allied Forces Act, the Polish authorities arrested him and imprisoned him. He was not a Polish citizen when

it was a question of getting into Poland, but he became a Polish citizen when his services were required. If a man, in these circumstances had said, as he did say, that he would serve the Polish cause and that he was willing to do it in the British Army, but not in the Polish Army, was he taking an unreasonable view? In this Bill there is nothing to prevent countless numbers of people of that kind being conscripted by the Poles to serve in the Polish Forces. Cannot something be done about that? Ought there not to be something in the Bill—I am certainly not objecting to conscription—to give such people a reasonable option where they will serve?
Let me ask another question. I do not wish to deal with it in any detail, because the ground has already been covered. Whatever case can be made out for giving these Governments power over their own nationals, there is no ground for giving them power over persons who are not their nationals at all. Suppose a question of disputed nationality arises. The Bill provides a procedure if the man claims to be a British subject, a reasonably quick and effective procedure, which decides the question, not for all purposes, but for the purposes of this Bill. I have no objection to that, but why is it limited to British subjects? Suppose a man claims not to be the subject of the Government seeking to exercise jurisdiction over him. As I see it, unless he happens to be rich enough to begin proceedings in the High Court, the sole judge of whether the maritime court has jurisdiction is the maritime court itself. You are making the Allied Government the judge in its own case when the whole question to be decided is whether he is subject to the Act or not. Why should not the question be tried by a British court, or a mixed court? It ought certainly not to be tried by the Government which asserts the jurisdiction. They are not proper judges of the question. They are the plaintiffs. They are asking for the question to be determined in their favour, and the Bill allows them to determine the question themselves.
The Bill gives powers to those Governments which are not enjoyed by our own Military Forces. If a member of our Military Forces absents himself, he cannot be arrested by the nearest soldier, or by an escort, and taken back by his regiment. That would be an unlawful


arrest. If the Army allege that a man is an absentee from his unit, they must lodge a complaint with the civil authority, and the civil police arrest him, and a court of summary jurisdiction determines whether he is an absentee or not, and, if the civil court determines that he is an absentee, it orders him to be handed over and taken back to his unit. But you do not let a military court decide that question. Why not have a similar procedure under this Bill when there is a dispute whether the Allied Government have jurisdiction? You compel the Allied Government to go to a magistrate and take out a summons. Why not have the summons returnable before that court and let the court determine whether the man is subject to the jurisdiction alleged against him before handing him over? I make that constructive suggestion, and I hope it will be considered. When we have had so little time to consider the Bill, and in a short Debate of this kind so many points have arisen which will require re-examination, it reinforces the plea against rushing the Bill through and regretting it afterwards. Let us have proper time to consider it. There is no immediate hurry for it. The Battle of the Atlantic is not going to be lost for want of it within the next few days.
To return to the point of general principle, it seems to me that we are giving away with both hands things which are not points of legal punctilio but which go to the root of our way of living and our conception of justice. They ought not to be given away if there is any other way of meeting the problem. There is really no necessity whatever for the Bill. The discipline which it is necessary to maintain on board these vessels can already be maintained by the Merchant Shipping Act and our Defence Regulations. If there are doubts as to whether those powers exist, a one-clause Bill removing them is all that the Government really need, and they ought not to ask the House to give wider powers and to give away more of our hard-won liberties than the necessities of the case require. No case has been made out for the Bill, and I should like to see it withdrawn, but, if it cannot be withdrawn, I hope ample opportunity will be given for drastic reconstruction in Committee.

Mr. Gallacher: After listening to the discussion, and after studying the Bill, I cannot understand why there is not a definite and concerted opposition to it. I gather from what has been said that some decision has been taken in the Labour movement either to support it or to let it go through. That is very bad, for obvious reasons. The thing that becomes clearer and clearer from all that goes on is the need for effective opposition in order to bring out many of the bad features of policy which are being developed at present. The Home Secretary was arguing to try to convince himself, and he hopelessly failed. I have never heard such puerile arguments to back up a Bill of the kind—as though it were possible to have sovereign States operating within this country. It is not possible. It is an absurdity. You cannot legislate by arguing on absurdities, and you cannot win the Battle of the Atlantic by arguing on absurdities. It is quite possible to discuss a Bill and make it an Act of Parliament which might be of very great assistance to the Battle of the Atlantic, but it is also possible to discuss, and pass a Bill which would do very great harm to the Battle of the Atlantic. Merely to talk about the urgency of the Battle of the Atlantic does not get us anywhere. What is it that we have to face? Not a case of murder or petty larceny on the high seas. It is a question of getting ships cleared at the speediest possible moment.
I am afraid that, even when the Minister pays tribute to the bravery and devotion of these Allied seamen, he, and Members of the House, and the people generally do not give enough consideration to just what it is that these lads are facing and enduring. I know quite a number of them, and I have heard stories which are almost incredible as to how these men manage to carry on. If I were engaged in the Merchant Service, possibly I would continue to carry on, but I know that every time I went to the ship I would go in dread. It is not only a question of dread, but a question of the appalling hazards and experiences that these lads have to go through. There has never been anything like it. Here you propose quite calmly, as though you were discussing some abstraction that did not matter, to place these lads under the control of these so-called national Govern-


ments without any question of considering their unions or themselves in the character of these courts. It is a callous and brutal attitude and shows that Members do not understand what these lads are enduring and facing day after day while we are sitting here. I have spoken to some of these lads and seen them come ashore with every nerve on edge, but they are braced up in a day or two and go back to their ships. I do not know how some of them face it.
This Bill will give the Polish Government national sovereignty. They were merely a Fascist Government, and the court will have to be set up according to their Constitution. Before Hitler came to power they were notorious for their anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic programme and for the unspeakable poverty of the masses of their workers and peasants. Are we to put their seamen, without any consideration for their unions, under the control of this Government? What is the use of the Home Secretary talking about national sovereignty and denying all that he and his party have always stood for by refusing the seamen and their unions the right to have a say in the character of the courts? Take the case of the Greek Government. Nobody will deny the courage and endurance of the Greek people, but the Greek Government are Fascist. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) said that we must not try to limit the rights of these Governments to act as they would in their own countries. All the Liberals in Greece are in gaol or have been deported, and if we allowed the Greek Government to act here as they did in their own country, it would be a bad lookout for the Liberals here. The Greek Government are a rigid Fascist Government. Are they to be allowed to decide the character of the court that is to be set up, without any consideration for the seamen's organisations? If it were a case of setting up courts in their own country, the Labour movement in this country would assist the seamen's union and the Socialist organisation there so as to strengthen them in the democratisation of the courts.
Why should the Labour movement at a time like this take up their present attitude instead of demanding that the fullest consideration should be given to the seamen's union and demanding that they should be consulted as to the course to

be taken to help the turnabout of ships? Instead of that, we hear nonsense talked about the subtleties of national sovereignty. There is no such thing in this country as national sovereignty independent of, or separate from, or operating apart from the sovereignty of this country. I would suggest that the Labour movement and trade unions of this country should take an active interest in this matter and demand the withdrawal of this Bill and demand also consultation with the democratic organisations in order to reach an understanding as to the best method of ensuring the quickest turnabout of the ships and the greatest concern for the lives and well-being and the democratic rights of the men who have to sail the ships.

Mr. Rhys Davies: It is obvious that the Government spokesmen are not very enthusiastic about the provisions of this Bill, and I am not surprised at that. What has astonished me is that the Bill is regarded more or less as a quid pro quo. The Allied Governments have apparently agreed that we should use their ships at a price, provided they secure their rights in this country as sovereign Powers. That, however, takes us into the realm of high politics, and I do not want to dwell upon it. I should have thought that, apart from one problem, the Allied Governments would have been willing for their nationals to come under the British legal code. That exception is what might happen on the high seas; but if foreign ships are controlled by His Majesty's Government, I should have thought they would have been British territory for legal purposes, like any British ship. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be good enough to clear up that point.
The issues that I want to raise are small but important. Will these courts be conducted in the language of the nationals concerned? If we are to set up Norwegian, Dutch and Polish courts here and the proceedings are to take place in the languages of the courts on British soil, will the Solicitor-General see that Welshmen in Wales are entitled in future to speak their own language in their own courts? I see at least three hon. Members here who understand the Welsh language, and I would like to press that point home. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be


faced in due course with a powerful agitation for that reform from parts of the Principality. If nationals of other countries are to be tried in their own language on British soil, Welshmen should certainly be allowed to use their own language in their own country. Imagine a Norwegian court held in Wales in the Norwegian language while Welsh people living in Wales are not allowed to speak their own language in their own native courts. What an anomaly. I am sure that this Bill will do one thing, and that is to remove that anomaly in connection with the Principality of Wales. I am sure that the Solicitor-General will be able to reply," I will see that the Cabinet deals with that problem right away."If he does not, I shall be very much offended.

The Solicitor-General: I cannot see that there will ever arise circumstances in which an invader will be able to drive out from Wales a Welsh Government.

Mr. Davies: That has been done in the past, but it was not our fault. The next point is as to who is to meet the expenses of these courts? The Bill says that the expenses are to be shouldered by the Allied Governments, but I would like to know where they get their money from. The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to assure the House who is to foot the bill in the end. Another point is the position of the conscientious objector. Under this Bill the men will be conscripts; the point about which I am anxious is whether the Allied Governments, in the courts which will be established in this country, will be able to impose upon their nationals penalties more severe than would apply if they had come under British law. I have been in some of those countries, and I know their attitude towards trade unionism. I was in one country in Central Europe, long before Hitler came on the scene, attending a trade union conference, and I was watched by two detectives while at that conference. One of those Governments from Central Europe will be establishing courts within this country, and I shall be interested to know what their attitude will be if their nationals form a trade union. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks it right that a Government from a foreign country should establish itself in this country, why does he not try to persuade it that conscientious objection to service shall be

acknowledged in the case of its nationals exactly as it is allowed in the case of our own nationals?
Now I come to another point which may appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and other members of the legal profession. Who is to undertake the defence of men who are accused? Are the lawyers supposed to be able to speak the language in which the proceedings of the court are conducted? Imagine a Welsh or an English lawyer pleading the case of one of these men in a court carried on in the Norwegian language. What would happen then? Or are we to understand that there are plenty of Dutch, Norwegian and Polish lawyers in this country ready to argue cases in these courts? I am sure that this point will appeal to every lawyer in this House. It is no use passing a law unless you give work to lawyers.
Is there anything in the Bill to deal with industrial troubles? That is the most important point of all that I want to raise. Some of these foreign Governments are as democratic and as sympathetic towards trade unionism as we are, very friendly indeed; but one of them is, I think, very antagonistic to trade unionism. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell us whether, in the event of a legitimate strike for better conditions of employment on ships, this Bill will prevent the foreign workmen from exercising the same rights in order to alter those conditions as they would have if they were British seamen on British ships. Having said that, I come back to the point that I am highly intrigued about whether these courts will be conducted in the language of the foreign country. And will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us how many languages are spoken in some of these countries. They are not always a one-language community. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) mentioned Galicia in Poland. There were three languages in Poland alone. I can recall an interesting experience of my own when seven Ukrainians came to me about their nationality. The policeman had told them, "With that nationality you are bound to be enemy aliens" That is not an uncommon impression. My last word is to repeat that I am very much concerned to see that no penalty shall be inflicted upon any of these nationals which is more severe than that which


would be inflicted upon a British national for the same offence.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: I have a few words to say in support of this Bill. The decision at our party meeting was that we should support the Bill, but I think my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) is right in saying that at the party meeting the case was not put before us in quite the same way as the Home Secretary put it to-day. It may be that it is because of the way in which it was put to us that we came to a decision which otherwise we should not have taken, but I do not think it would be correct to say that, and in any event I feel sure that before the proceedings are terminated today we shall get the same explanation as caused us to come to the decision we took at the party meeting. I am rather pleased that the Bill has been brought in. It shows how different our attitude towards Governments that have been subjugated is from that taken by the enemy, and as a House of Commons we are entitled to take some pride in that fact. I agree that this Bill will not decide the fate of the Battle of the Atlantic, and I am equally certain that the Solicitor-General does not think so either, but if we have found that there is need for machinery of this kind in order to deal with difficulties which have been experienced by the shipowners and the shippers of this country I think that machinery ought to be set up.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham, who always prepares himself to deal with the questions which he handles in this House, showed us that the powers granted under the Defence of the Realm Act would permit of much which we are told needs to be done being done without this Measure, but, all the same, we must be certain that the shipping at our command is used to its maximum capacity, and I understand that is the reason for bringing forward this Bill. Difficulties have been experienced by somebody somewhere and this Bill is designed to get over those difficulties. Most of us in this House are anxious to see the war won. I wish the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) were still here, for I should like to say that I am getting tired of listening to people who look for opportunities ever' time to criticise the Government although they have never come forward to support them since

the war started. My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham has fought as hard as most Members in this House for a vigorous prosecution of the war, and he is entitled to criticise, but I deny the right of hon. Members to seek every opportunity to criticise the Government while never taking an opportunity to encourage them. But that is by the way.
These foreign Governments ought to have our sympathy and be helped by us to whatever extent we can help them. Supposing we were driven from this country—we never shall be, of that I am certain—but supposing we were. We could have the advantage of settling in a part of our Empire, and we should not need to seek the powers for which these foreign Governments are asking. Let us give fair play to these Governments, of whatever complexion they may be, who are to-day settled in this country. If the Dutch Government had settled in a part of the Dutch Empire, they could have exercised more authority over their own nationals than this Bill gives them, but their presence there would not have been as convenient to us as the present arrangement. It is better for us to have the Dutch Government here than in the Dutch West Indies. This Bill is the inevitable outcome of the way this war has gone. I am not prepared to take the line of my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). If his attitude were sympathetic to the Governments concerned, it would be different. He objects to the Polish Government having these powers because he considers the Polish Government to be a dictatorship such as he does not like. You could not get a Bill to say, "We shall exclude those Governments because their complexion does not suit us and is not acceptable, and we shall include the others because it is"
I support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham. I hope that the Solicitor-General will give us some assurance that the interests of the seamen will be safeguarded. That is of vital importance. A disgruntled body of seamen would not help us in this war. The appeals that are to be dealt with will come upon the shipowners, but cannot be made an instrument to serve the interests of the shipowners. Naturally, we should resent such a situation. I support the Bill on the ground that it will make for


more effective action in shipping. Furthermore, I think it is a gesture to those Governments, which, despite a brave fight, have been driven from their homes. It is a gesture of good will and an indication that we give better treatment to subjugated Governments than does the enemy.

The Solicitor-General (Sir William Jowitt): We have had a very interesting discussion, and the speeches from all over the House have shown that Members have understood and considered the implications involved in the Bill. The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) said, quite truly, that the Bill was completely without precedent. I agree with him; unless we go back to those far distant, mediaeval ecclesiastical courts, it is completely without precedent—but my hon. Friend has never been an undue stickler for precedent. I may point out to him that, unhappily, the circumstances in which we find ourselves are also completely without precedent. Never before have there been some half dozen Allied Governments functioning, recognised and having their being, not in their own countries, but in this country. Therefore, while I admit his statement, I answer it by saying that the circumstances of to-day are such that we must not mind if we depart from precedent as long as we can make a good case for so doing.
The next proposition I do not think any Member doubts, that is, that there is an unanswerable case for doing something. As things are to-day, if a crime is committed on the high seas by a foreigner on board a foreign ship, the normal law that applies is, of course, the law of the flag, and the court that tries that crime is the court of the country of the flag. Where those courts cannot function to-day, it remains a solemn fact that any crime committed on the high seas to-day is not amenable to any court, or triable in any way. No-one will suggest that that is a possible state of affairs to continue. Obviously, something has to be done. Our system being a unitary system, our courts can never declare an Act of Parliament to be ultra vires or invalid. They must always accept it, however far it goes. Therefore, this House can legislate, either by Act of Parliament or under the Defence Regulations, and impose the duty upon British courts

to try crimes committed on the high seas, by, let me say, Norwegian nationals on Norwegian ships.
The question is whether it is desirable to do it. To some small extent it has been done under the Defence of the Realm Act. The particular Section which the hon. Member read out provides—and the hon. Member will find I am right if he has the Act before him—for what I may call shore offences, that is, desertion, or not turning up when the ship is due to sail, and so on. Only one other offence is covered, and that is drunkenness at any time on the voyage. The offence of being drunk during a voyage on the high seas can be tried under that Regulation, but to commit a murder on the high seas cannot. I agree, and I do not conceal it for a moment, that we can extend the Regulation and, by Regulation or Act of Parliament grant to British courts jurisdiction to try all these cases. It therefore becomes a question of expediency. It being obvious that some court has to try these cases, is it better that it should be a British court operating on British territory and under British law? That is one possibility. On the other hand, is it better that we should apply the law of the flag and allow the courts of the countries of the law of the flag to operate on British soil? Should we disregard the fact, the accident, that they have been, by force of circumstances, expelled from their own countries?

Mr. Gallacher: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman make any attempt whatever to control the conduct of those courts, or would he allow a whole series of courts to operate in this country, according probably to different laws or to different conceptions of law?

The Solicitor-General: If the hon. Member will hold his patience, he will find that I shall deal with that problem. At the moment, I am merely posing the general question. No one has suggested any other course. Either British law is to be extended to apply to all these cases and British courts are to deal with them, or, to take the other course, we extend to the countries concerned the right to hold their courts, be it observed, exactly as they would have done had they not been driven from their own territories. I would here protest that it is, to my mind, wholly fallacious to suggest that this is the thin end of the wedge and that we are going


to allow these foreign Governments to come over her, set up a system of tax collecting and so on, and generally to deal with their own nationals. It has been suggested in the course of the Debate that that is so, but, of course, no such thing is intended. We are proposing to do away with the fact that these Governments have been driven from their own territories.
On the whole, we definitely came to the conclusion that it was better, with all the disadvantages it may be said to entail, to take the latter course, and not to impose British law and have British courts trying these people, but to allow their own courts to function on British soil. In taking that course, we have undoubtedly met the wishes of the Allied Governments I venture to say to the House that that is not a small matter. If we had taken the other course, we should have ridden roughshod over what they wanted. It seems to me that to ride roughshod over people who are in unfortunate circumstances is taking a page out of Hitler's book.

Mr. Silverman: Does the Solicitor-General really mean that if we take the view in this country that to carry out an agreed object in one way is more reasonable than to carry It out in another, that is riding roughshod over people?

The Solicitor-General: Of course not, but in making up your mind which of two possible courses to take, the fact that one meets with the approval of these Allied Governments and the other meets with their bitter opposition is one which I should have thought would have appealed to any Englishman—any British subject—but not, I understand, to Hitler. That is one reason. Let me consider what follows from that. It follows that, if we are to extend to those Governments the courtesies which we should have expected them to extend to us in like circumstances, we cannot go behind their backs and ask what this or the other organisation thinks of it. When I say that, it does not mean that we cannot use such information as we have and discuss these matters with the foreign Governments in a friendly way. Since this Debate has largely turned upon Norwegian ships—I am, unlike my hon. Friend, ignorant about these matters, but I presume it has been because a very large proportion of the ships are Norwegian—let me tell him this: The

Norwegian seamen are, of course, organised in this country in a union which is recognised both by the owners and by the Norwegian Government. We know that the proposal we are here submitting meets with the approval not "only of the Norwegian Government, but of the Norwegian Seamen's Union. They prefer this method of being dealt with by their own courts sitting in this country to being dealt with by British courts under British law.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask whence the right hon. and learned Gentleman derived that information? Was it from the Norwegian Government or from the Norwegian Seamen's Union?

The Solicitor-General: It was from the Norwegian Government. I have already said we cannot go behind their backs. Surely my hon. Friend is not going to suggest that the Norwegian Government have given us inaccurate information. We cannot go behind the Norwegian Government to find out from their union, which they recognise, what its wishes are. That, we regard as being a matter for the Norwegian Government, but, if the Norwegian Government tell us that the proposal in this Bill is in accordance with the wishes of the Norwegian union, we have no doubt whatever that they are telling us what is a fact. Although I cannot say that in respect of the other Governments, I can say that the Dutch, Belgian and Polish Governments have their unions, or at any rate have their machinery by means of which they regulate wages, and that they are all pressing or at any rate requesting that this method of dealing with the difficulty should be adopted. I have no doubt that they also have taken similar soundings, although I cannot give the House an assurance on the point.
It is perhaps pardonable that an Englishman should above all things like best to be tried by a British court. But do not let us too readily assume that Norwegians would prefer to be tried by a British court, in a language which they do not easily understand, rather than in a foreign court. Surely it is easy enough to understand that it is natural for these men, if they have to be subject to discipline— and, of course, particularly at a time like this they must be subject to discipline— to prefer to be dealt with by their own courts on their own lines.

Mr. Silverman: They could be dealt with by Polish courts. Would they prefer that?

The Solicitor-General: No, the hon. Member is wrong. The only way in which a person could be dealt with by a court other than of their own nationality is this. It has always been the law that a person on board a ship, or a person who has signed the articles of that ship, is subject to the disciplinary powers and to the law of that ship—the law of the flag. What we propose under Clause 2 is to provide for three classes of case. The first is
any act or omission by any person on board a merchant ship of that power
That has always been the law

Mr. Silverman: It means that I was right and not wrong.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member is always right. It is a mere illustration of a general proposition. The second case provided for is:
any act or omission committed by the master or any member of the crew …
And there again he has signed the articles and is obviously subject to the law of the flag. The third case, which the hon. Member is dealing with, is a case of a person who is both a national of the Power and is a seafaring person. Now let me consider his case of the Galician who used to be an Austrian and who, when the Austro-Hungarian Empire ceased to exist, became a Stateless person or a Pole. I may say that this Bill deals with seamen, and whether there are in fact many ex-Austro-Hungarian Galicians who are seamen I do not pretend to know. I should have thought it was a very good point for a moot, but not one which is likely to arise in real practice. But be it so. Somebody has to decide whether or not that man is a Pole or is a Stateless person. Some court has to decide, and the hon. Member thinks it is better that a British court should decide. But what does the British court have to decide? It is a mixed question of law and of fact, and the law applicable would be Polish law. Therefore, the unfortunate British court would have to base its determination upon Polish law, which means to say that there would be a lot of Polish experts on one side and an equal number of Polish experts on the other side, and the British court would have to make out which set of experts were more likely to be right.

What we propose under the Bill is that it is much more convenient that the Polish court, which is more likely to know Polish law, should decide the question. But there is, of course, a measure of control under Clause 11 (2), to the extent that our High Court can always intervene if the jurisdiction of the maritime court is being exceeded. In order that the maritime court may have jurisdiction, there must be both the qualifications set out in Clause 2 (1, b) of the Bill. I think the hon. Member will therefore see that in that way we have endeavoured to provide every possible safeguard, and that we have endeavoured to bring the matter before the most convenient court.

Mr. Silverman: Is it not a fact that the point I have raised is not one of academic interest, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes it out to be one? My own view is that it is not. I think there will be a number of practical illustrations of it, however recondite it may appear when discussed in Debate here. Ultimately, if the man concerned is well enough informed and is rich enough, he can call upon the British court to do all those things which the Solicitor-General thought it was so hard for it to do. But if he is not so well informed, or if he has no means, he will perforce have to be content with the decision of the maritime court in question. What I suggested to him was that the practical way of dealing with the matter would be to deal with it in exactly the same way as the question of absentees from the British Forces. Let the court which issues the process have the right to examine, prima facie, whether the man is or is not subject to the jurisdiction which it is sought to enforce against him. Surely that is practical, quick and easy.

The Solicitor-General: I will answer the hon. Member's point as best I can. Taking his illustration, it seems to us that where the question turns upon a point of Polish law, the Polish court should decide in the first instance, with an overriding power and right on the part of our High Court to check that court if it can be shown to be exceeding its jurisdiction. I do not want to be drawn off, if I may say so, on to Committee points. That is obviously a Committee point. Incidentally, it is obvious that hon. Members are already furnished with all this ingenious ammunition for a very early and speedy Commit-


tee stage. I want, on the Second Reading, to consider the wider issues. With very few exceptions, the House desires that this Bill should get a speedy Second Reading. I cannot think it right at present that the Allied Governments should have greater difficulty in dealing with their seamen than we have in dealing with ours. We can, and do, send our seamen to serve on British ships. Is it not fair, not only to foreign Governments but to us, and to our seamen, that the nationals of foreign Powers, if they are seamen, should take their share in serving on the ships of those Powers? It is wrong to regard these Powers as merely fighting our battle. They are fighting their own battle, while they are fighting ours. It seems to me quite wrong to hesitate to give them the power which we have, and which we exercise, in respect of our own ships.

Mr. Shinwell: The whole case of the Solicitor-General, and of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, rests on the assumption that there have been wholesale desertions and infringements of discipline aboard Norwegian, Greek, Dutch and other Allied vessels. Can he fortify his assumption with facts? In the course of this Debate, we have not had a single word to indicate whether there is a substantial case for granting such powers.

The Solicitor-General: If my hon. Friend had heard the speech of the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams), he would have heard that hon. Member say that, he knew, from his own experience, of the lack of discipline which has held up these foreign ships. It is no good the hon. Member shaking his head. If the hon. Member could get rid of difficulties by shaking his head, we should not be faced with the problem that we have to-day. I know the number of cases in which these foreign seamen have been charged under the Defence of the Realm Act. I am bound to tell the hon. Member that the number of cases is considerable, and runs into three figures. That being so, it is obviously not a fancied or imaginary thing. Real powers are needed.
Although I am not going to say that the Battle of the Atlantic depends on this Bill being passed in the next couple of Sittings or anything of that sort, I do say that the Battle of the Atlantic must depend on the

skill, courage and discipline of the seamen—not only the British seamen, but all the Allied seamen—and that any measure which makes for the better discipline of these seamen, British and Allied, contributes its quota towards the winning of the Battle of the Atlantic and the winning of the war. Although hon. Members have raised points which merit attention on the Committee stage—if the House likes I will deal with them now; but I will certainly bear them in mind on the Committee stage, and do what I can to meet them— I want to deal now with one or two broader questions. Members in various parts of the House have asked, for instance, about divergent sentences. The sentences passed by a British court might be slight, while those passed by a foreign court for the same class of offence might be heavy. Nothing is more fallacious than to try to measure offences by one yardstick, because offences differ so immensely.

Mr. Shin well: What about murder? My right hon. and learned Friend has spoken about fallacies, but fallacies are not always on one side.

The Solicitor-General: The Home Office has considered these matters, even before having its attention drawn to them by the hon. Member. The foreign Governments have agreed with us that a marked discrepancy in sentences is, as the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) pointed out, very undesirable. They agree, therefore, that we shall, through the usual diplomatic channels, make representations to them; and they have given us an assurance that, so far as lies within their power, they will make their codes harmonise with ours. That is a very satisfactory assurance to have, and I hope it will meet the wishes of the hon. Member in that respect. With respect to professional assistance, a difficulty arises, owing to the lack of the necessary number of people; but the foreign Governments have assured us that it is their desire to see that professional assistance by fellow-nationals, who understand the language and, of course, know the procedure and the law with which they are dealing, is forthcoming for anyone who desires it. It has been arranged also that the more serious classes of offences—because hon. Members will realise that the British courts are maintaining a concurrent jurisdiction— such as homicide, rape, arson, grievous


bodily harm, and so on, will, as a general rule, be dealt with, under the ordinary British procedure, by the British courts. The Allied Governments are willing, and indeed anxious, that that should be done. I think that that meets some of the Committee points. I am now prepared to give way to the hon. Member for Seaham, if he wishes me to do so.

Mr. Shinwell: May I point out, with very great respect, that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman is replying to the Debate, and dealing with points which have been raised, it is perfectly permissible for hon. Members to intervene? His attitude in refusing to give way seems to me quite unnecessary. He has made a great song and dance about national sovereignty. In the case of murder on the high seas, he says that these cases may be dealt with by British courts. But that was the basis of the case of the Home Secretary. My case was that that in respect of that class of offence on board ship, foreign or British, we have had no evidence as to the number of cases, beyond the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the number runs into three figures, whatever that may mean. It is the easiest thing in the world to deal with these cases under existing powers. If that is the class of case that the Government want to deal with, there is no need for this Bill.

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry if I did not give way before. It was not through discourtesy, but because I wanted to get on with my argument. Of course, it is quite obvious that we can deal with this matter by passing a law. Parliament can do anything, and the courts have to administer the laws that we pass. But what is the better course to pursue? Is to make a British crime, and to deal with it in that way; or to take the other course? We have taken the other course. I was saying that certain crimes such as murder committed within the territory or any criminal act committed while the ship is in dock, are to-day offences against the British law, unlike crimes on the high seas. The Allied Governments have agreed as a matter of convenience—we think it desirable, and I believe they think it desirable—that those cases where the offence is one which our courts here already have jurisdiction to try, and which the maritime courts also would have jurisdiction to try,

should be dealt with by our courts. That was what I was endeavouring to tell the House, and I do not think that it in any way conflicts with anything that the Home Secretary said when he said that murder or crime committed on the high seas is not, as the law stands to-day, a matter which can be dealt with by our law. Of course, we could easily make a law which would enable us to deal with it, if we thought it a wise thing to do.

Mr. Mander: Would the learned Solicitor-General be good enough to deal with the point which I and others have put? If there is a dispute between two Allied subjects and a difference as to the nationality to which they belong, and they come before the court of one of the Allied subjects, is there to be any sort of appeal? It seems to me very desirable that there should be such an appeal.

The Solicitor-General: The only precedent we have is that the Allied court is left to deal with it. Take the concrete case, say of Holland and Belgium, contiguous countries. The question might arise whether a man born on one side of the boundary was by birth a Dutchman, or, being born on the other side, he was by birth a Belgian. A seaman is denned under the Act as a man who has been on active service in recent years on board ship. Cases like that would come before the Maritime Court. We propose that the Maritime Board, or the particular Allied court, should decide that particular point. They would have all the facts before them and be much better able to pronounce on the law of Holland and decide on the facts. The only control over it is to be found in Clause II (2) of the Bill. The hon. Member will find there that our High Court has power to interfere, if the jurisdiction conferred by this Measure has been exceeded.

Mr. Silverman: On whose motion?

The Solicitor-General: On the motion of nobody. If the hon. Member will look back to the Clause of the Bill dealing with the matter he will see what is the basis of jurisdiction. I am not saying that it might be wider or less wide, which is a matter for consideration, but it is a matter of information. That tells him how the Bill stands at present, and I think that he will find, when he comes to consider it, that there will be very obvious


difficulties of doing more than that. Those difficulties will become apparent when he sits down and thinks it over. We shall welcome his assistance in showing us during the course of the Committee stage where we can improve the Bill and hammer out something better. But this is a real effort to meet a very practical difficulty, and, I think, it will contribute to our war effort.

Mr. Harvey: Will the learned Solicitor-General elucidate further the very satisfactory statement that he has made? He assured the House that the Allied Governments were prepared to allow legal assistance in all cases where it was desired. Would that cover free legal aid in the case of poor seamen, many of whom are illiterate and could not afford to brief any counsel or get legal assistance?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend will realise that I cannot, speaking for the Allied Governments, say anything of the sort. But his observations will certainly be heard, and from what I can learn—I cannot bind anybody about this—particularly to the Norwegian Government. In many respects they set an example in their legal system generally which many of us might copy.

Mr. Gallacher: I heard over the wireless the statement that it is possible to send seamen from one ship to another. It is possible that seamen might be sent not only to British but to other ships. A British seaman might: be sent to a Polish ship and vice versa. Will the Solicitor-General see to it that where seamen are sent to other ships under another flag under the provisions of the Measure, if anything happens, they should be tried in their own Maritime Court?

The Solicitor-General: The Question will certainly be considered.

Question, '' That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day. — (Mr. Munro.)

Orders of the Day — ALLIED POWERS (MARITIME COURTS). [Money.]

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make temporary provision for enabling Allied and associated Powers to establish and maintain in the United Kingdom Maritime Courts for the trial and punishment of certain offences committed by persons other than British subjects, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred in connection with the establishment of local tribunals under the said Act or arising out of any jurisdiction exercisable by such tribunals." —(King's Recommendation signified.) —[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — ALIEN DOCTORS.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn" — [Mr. Munro.]

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I gave notice a week or two ago that I would, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, bring before the House on the Adjournment the question of the treatment by the Government of alien and Allied doctors in this country in relation to the whole question of our man-power and the way it is being used. There has been a good deal of chaos and muddle in dealing with this question. It will generally be recognised that the economical use of our man-power and woman-power in the war is a vital matter. The strain upon the medical man-power and woman-power is greater because of the demands of the Services, and the very character of this war imposes also an additional strain on the medical personnel in civilian life. That there has been a scarcity of medical men and women is admitted, although I am bound to say that this scarcity has been aggravated by the maldistribution of medical personnel and, in some categories, the maladministration which now exists." The Government recognised the principle that foreign medical men should be used, to meet the scarcity, by passing a Regulation in January last whereby such medical men could be admitted to the British Medical Register and become qualified to serve professionally in hospitals and under the Emergency Medical Service. Indeed, this decision has been confirmed by the recommendation of the committee set up by the present Minister or his predecessor— the committee known as the Robinson


Committee which has been inquiring into the position of medical men here.
Recommendation 5 of this Committee States that the employment of alien practitioners, admitted to the Register, in civil hospitals and—be it noted—in the Services should be further extended. It is very difficult for a Member of the House who is not a member of the Government to get the exact figures but I have the approximate figures which, I think, are nearly accurate. In January last there were 1,400 alien doctors in this country—and here I use the term "alien" in its comprehensive sense. About 750 were German, Austrian and Italian; 250 were Czechs; about 350 were Poles and a number were Norwegian and French. Although that Regulation was passed in January, when it was admitted by the Ministry of Health that these medical men should be utilised, as far as my information goes, out of that 1,400, roughly only 100 foreign doctors have found employment in this country. 'What is the cause of this dilatoriness in dealing with what is generally admitted to be, an urgent problem?
There may be, no doubt, a little lack of good will in the medical profession itself. Probably the members of no profession want to see a foreign element coming in and taking part in work which belongs to them, as it were, and has belonged to them for ages. I think this lack of good will may have slightly expressed itself, too, in the Central Medical War Committee which is dealing with this problem. Although this body is not a British Medical Association Committee, it has a majority representation from the Association and I think it is largely regarded as such. It may be also that our hospitals in this country have shown a little ill-will but my information is that that is very small. If it had been put to them that alien doctors were ready to offer their services, I feel sure that the hospital authorities of this country would have been only too glad to utilise them. Where, therefore, does the fault lie? It lies, of course, like a lot of other things in connection with this war, with the multiplicity of Departments. I am sure the House will not think that I am over-critical. I am most anxious to help the war effort in any way I can and if I say anything critical it is meant to be con-

structive. We all want to beat the Nazis and to be sure that every branch of Government and its organisation is alive and cleaving its way through small difficulties in order to arrive at satisfactory conclusions.
As I have said, there is this multiplicity of Departments. These is the Ministry of Health, the British Red Cross, the Army, including the R.A.M.C., the Polish Consulate, the Polish Military Headquarters, the Czech Ministry of Social Welfare, the Czech military authorities, the Czech Refugee Trust Fund, the Central Committee for Refugees, the Parliamentary Refugees' Committee and a host of other committees and persons. The Central Medical Committee has an inadequate staff to deal with the matter. I am told that there is only one official to deal with this question at the moment. Last, but not least, there is serious delay at the Aliens Department of the Home Office which is causing a hold-up. This Department is the very crux of the matter. It is the bottle-neck, as I hope to show. If my simple calculation is correct it will take three years to absorb these alien doctors at the present rate of absorption. There are cases in which hospitals in this country have appointed these medical men to posts. These hospitals have been unable to get other medical assistance and have appointed alien doctors. Sometimes it has taken two months to get sanction from the Home Office to do this.
I do not want to detain the House but there has been no opportunity of making this case before and I would like to refer shortly to the procedure, in order to illustrate this aspect of the problem. The applicant, first, applies to the hospital the authorities of which interview him. If they like him, they have to send for his references. His referees send back particulars about his character and the hospital appoints him. That is the first step. The next thing the hospital authorities have to do is to communicate with the Central Medical War Committee which sends back two forms to the hospital and two others to the applicant. The hospital and the applicant send back these forms and the Central Committee approves.
What happens next? The Central Medical War Committee sends the applicant to the Aliens Department of the Home Office. Then the delay starts. The Aliens Department begins again to send


out reference forms. Last Saturday I received from the Aliens Department a reference form to be filled up in connection with a medical man who has been waiting for a job for two months, and who is wanted by a hospital. When the Aliens Department gives its "O.K" to the man, the form is returned again to the Central Medical War Committee, and that Committee sends it to the General Medical Council for final confirmation. I believe I am right in saying that the General Medical Council does not sit every day, but once a week. Eventually the form goes back from the General Medical Council to the Central Medical War Committee, which communicates with the hospital, and finally the hospital communicates with the applicant. I ask hon. Members whether that is the way for a great nation like ours to carry on its affairs? For generations we have shown the world how to organise. If there is an earthquake in China, our people go there and do magnificent work. The British are the best organisers. If there is a famine in India, we do magnificent work. Can we not deal with alien doctors in this country in a proper way? We admit the necessity of using their services. Cannot we deal with this matter in a proper way instead of having all this tomfoolery, which is a disgrace?

Dr. Russell Thomas: May I ask my hon. Friend whether, when the Central Medical War Committee send out these forms for the Home Office, they also send some other secret document with the form? Are they merely the channel by which the forms are sent, or do they comment on the matter to the Home Office; and also, when they send the forms back to the General Medical Council, do they again comment on the position of the alien? May I also ask whether the Central Medical War Committee is not merely an organ of the British Medical Association?

Sir H. Morris-Jones: It is rather difficult to answer those questions. I have not seen any evidence that the Central Medical War Committee question the bona fides or the loyalty of these applicants. I think they allow the Aliens Department of the Home Office to deal with that.I have given the House an illustration of the number of forms that have to be filled up. I was told the other day that there is some further delay now because the supply

of forms has run out at the Central Medical War Council. Is it to be wondered that, with circumstances of this sort, these alien doctors, many of whom have been in this country for many years, feel rather bitter, rather disappointed, and rather sore? I could give some very remarkable examples regarding some of these men. The man for whom I filled up a form last Saturday is an Austrian. He had a very good clinic at Hamburg in Germany. He was in this country before the war at a spa in North Wales, where he did quite good work on diet. He was arrested, and put in a camp at the time of the crisis after Dunkirk. Later he went into a pioneer battalion, and he contracted tuberculosis, and was sent to a sanatorium. He got better. At the sanatorium they liked him very much and were very anxious that he should go on their staff, as they were short-staffed.
Another case of which I know is that of a Czechoslovak doctor. He came to this country in April, 1939, and addressed a very big medical conference in London. He is a man of international fame and is a great authority on his subject. While attending the conference in London, he was informed that Hitler had marched into Prague, and that an employè whom he had formerly dismissed for dishonesty had been made Nazi leader in the area. He very wisely thought that it would not be very good for him to go back. This individual has been offering his services to the British authorities since the beginning of the war. He is known all over the world, and among his referees in this country are men like Lord Horder, Sir John Weir, Sir William Wilcox and Lord Dawson; and men and women of renown in this country in all classes of society and in all spheres of life have been patients of his before he came to this country. This man was making about £20,000 a year once He is a man with a brilliant mind. In addition to his medical and scientific attainments, he is a man of great political and economic acumen, and on several occasions he has sent me suggestions which I have passed to the Government, some of them having been acknowledged with gratitude by the Government. This man has now been kept waiting seven weeks for a £200 a year job on the East Coast.
Why do we not make use of these brains? We are fighting the most diabolical, most organised and most scientific men the world has ever known


or conceived of. Cannot we make use of these alien doctors? At this juncture, when these men have been applying since the beginning of the war, it is announced that we are to take 1,000 American doctors into the Royal Army Medical Corps. I should be the last to say a word against that. I am a great believer in an Anglo-American union. I give it my most hearty co-operation, and will do everything I can to help it, because I believe that the only hope for the future is in that direction. But do not let us shout from the housetops about asking 1,000 American doctors to come here, and then do an injustice to those who have been here for so long and those who have had to leave their homes. The Czechoslovaks are very fine men; they offered to fight and were persuaded by us not to fight, and they came over to England. There are many Poles and Austrians as well.
By the way, we always speak of them as aliens, and they rather object to that term. Why not restrict that term to police use? If we refer to their forces, we speak of the Allied Forces—the Czechoslovak Allied Forces and the Polish Allied Forces; but if we refer to them as individuals, we call them aliens. Some of them who have been here a very long time rather dislike the term. They hate the Nazis far more than some British people do, and they are prepared to do anything they can to help us in this war. We are asking 1,000 American doctors to come here. May I give a warning to the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, which I hope she will pass on to the Minister of Health? These American doctors will come here with great enthusiasm for a crusade. They will come here with different traditions and a different upbringing. They will be unable to understand the obtuseness of the English official mind. Do not let us discourage them by putting them in the R.A.M.C. to clean instruments for a few hours a day. Let us see that their skill is made use of in the best possible way, and let there be liaison officers and staff officers to ensure that these fine men who come from across the water will be given an opportunity to develop their talents in a way which will most help our medical man-power.
The question of alien doctors touches the whole question of our medical manpower. I, like other hon. Members, receive

a great deal of correspondence on this subject. Our medical man-power is very badly distributed at the present time. In the rural areas it is often impossible to find a medical man to attend even a confinement case. I had a letter from South Wales the other day which showed that there was only one firm of doctors to deal with a population of 10,000, which no doubt has now been swollen to 18,000. I do not see why I should not mention the town; it is Milford Haven. This firm of doctors has to treat the whole of that population, and now they are threatening to call up a junior partner. In a neighbouring town the medical personnel has not been diminished at all. The Royal Army Medical Corps—I happen to be an honorary officer, and to have served in that Corps during the last war—which I believe to be a very fine Corps, seem, owing to the peculiar character of this war, to have an avaricious appetite for medical personnel, although there is not much work for them to do. The public are uneasy when they find they cannot get medical attention in a civil area. Some civil areas have been denuded, and doctors have left fine practices to spend their time with the Royal Army Medical Corps cleaning instruments. [AN HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Member was, I understand, about to say something most interesting about a town next door to Milford Haven"] I may unintentionally have been incorrect in regard to that particular town, but I have had instances where in various counties of England medical personnel has been so depleted that the population has been denuded of medical attention, whereas in other towns, five or 10 miles away, not a single man has been called up. The civil population are at a loss to understand this disparity.
I think that the Central Medical War Committee have done very valuable work in this war, but the whole question has now got beyond them. The Minister of Health ought to take the matter into his own hands. He should review the whole question of the utilisation and distribution of medical men and women. Let him appoint committees in each county, or in each county borough of over 250,000. Let that committee be comprised of a representative of the British Medical Association, which is a very large


body and to which the majority of medical practitioners belong, a responsible public man from the county, known for his eminence, fair play and fair dealing, and representatives of the trade unions and employers. Let that body consider the question of medical man-power for that particular county. I implore my hon. Friend, who represents the Ministry of Health, and the Under-Secretary of State to the Home Office, to recognise the principle and, indeed, the need of utilising alien and allied doctors to help our war effort. Let us get them on the Register doing the job. In the second place, let there be a review on a wide basis of the whole question of the distribution and employment of our medical men and women.

Sir Francis Fremantle: I do not wish to stand for long between my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) and the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary. I should, however, like to say one or two words as the only Member of this House who is a member of the Central Medical War Committee, a body which does not seem to meet entirely with the approval of my hon. Friend. I want to make one or two corrections. I should like to say most cordially that the Central Medical War Committee welcome this discussion. They welcome criticism and they are glad it has come, because, in the first place, some of the criticisms may be justified and we may help to correct things of which we are conscious, or sometimes unconscious. In the second place, most of the criticisms will be found unjustified, and we are very glad to give an explanation. One point still requires to be made, that the Central Medical War Committee is not the British Medical Association. When the Government had to consider a body to carry out this work for the whole profession, they naturally took the advice of the British Medical Association, which includes 40,000 registered medical practitioners—practically the whole of the medical profession. It may be 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. Anyhow, it is far and away the nearest approach to the whole medical profession. When the British Medical Association said they would help to establish a committee which would represent the whole profession, without any undue balance to the British Medical Association, with their staff and apparatus and organisation, to help in the national cause,

surely the Government were very sensible in accepting that offer on condition that those points were made clear. So what happened? The Central Medical War Committee was set up, by agreement with independent bodies like the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, and direct representation was given to those outside bodies. I think the Central Medical War Committee is probably the most representative body of the medical profession that you could get.
In the second place it is obviously a great deal better for something of this sort to be dealt with by the profession as a whole, with its intimate knowledge of the individuals concerned, whom they can therefore deal with and whose difficulties they understand, than to be taken over by a Government Department which is not only already very much overworked but which would also largely be in the hands of a great number of persons who would not equally be intimate with the whole work of the profession, and very likely some of whom would not be medical men themselves. The Central Medical War Committee has official observers appointed by the Ministries of Health, Education and Labour and by each of the Fighting Services, who attend regularly and are a very useful addition to the committee, and they keep a link with the whole of the Government machinery. I do not believe you could get a better body than that to carry on the work, because you have it directly related to the machinery of government, and undoubtedly the two observers from the Ministry of Health, one a layman and the other a medical man, are extremely valuable too.
Then we come to the specific difficulty of the alien doctors. We are as conscious of this difficulty as anyone else can be. We are as keen on using these people as my hon. Friend because the most gruelling part of the pathetic and tragic work that we have to do, especially with the Services Sub-committee, of which I am a member, is to take over from civil life medical men who are already fully employed, leaving their practice to a large extent depleted, in order to satisfy the demands of the public services. It is not clear from my hon. Friend's remarks whether he considers that the public services should or should not have the establishment made up to the full. The estab-


Iishment is laid down as the result of experience, and probably they cannot have less. He will probably agree that it is necessary that they should be ready for action at any time—that is, that our job is to fill the requirements of this service.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I do not think the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) attacked the Central Medical War Committee. He asked where the delay was in the appointment of alien doctors to take part in the medical welfare of the country. He suggested that it was the Home Office. I suggested that possibly it was the Central Medical War Committee, because they got forms sent, which were then sent to the Home Office. Then they go back to the Central Medical War Committee and to the General Medical Council, which is also practically representative of the British Medical Association, and therefore another vested interest.

Sir F. Fremantle: I will leave the Parliamentary Secretary to explain that. The hon. Member for Denbigh himself said that there was some lack of good will in the Central Medical War Committee. We are the same body as we were two years ago when we started the work. I do not think there is any lack of good will—certainly not consciously. However, I am clear that the actual machinery is there and is the best in the circumstances. I would go a stage further with regard to the question of organisation. My hon. Friend suggests that the Ministry of Health should take over the whole of the work and appoint local committees. Local committees already exist. In fact, it is the fundamental basis of the work of the Central War Committee, who are in the centre and cannot undertake the distribution of these men ourselves, so there was appointed in each area a local medical war committee, consisting of a certain number of representative and highly responsible medical men, and some women too, to give up their time to this very unpleasant work of deciding among their own colleagues whom they would root out from their practice and compel to serve. They come up to the Central Committee on appeal, and we are an appeal board, and we have to go through some very pathetic cases. I went through 40 on Friday and shall have probably another 40 on Friday week. We do it on the advice of the local

medical war committees. For heaven's sake, do not let us substitute for them any other committees to be set up by Whitehall.
Now I come to the question of how we are dealing with the alien doctors. I inquired specially on the subject on Friday in order to refresh my mind. We cannot do much more on the Central Committee than pass the thing on, but you must have one centre to which people should be able to direct these alien doctors in order to get their case put forward, and this medical association makes itself responsible for being a kind of centre to collect applications from alien doctors, or those concerned with them, to pass them on to the proper authority and, on the other hand, to receive applications from employing authorities in order to be able to employ them. I have been keenly interested in individual alien doctors and do my best for them, but it is not so easy as it might seem to employ them. In the first place, most of them cannot talk English, or, if they do, it is broken English. Therefore it is very difficult for them to understand the ways of the English medical profession and still more to understand English patients in order to prescribe for them; it is difficult for them to use the organisation to which they are to be appointed and to understand the conditions and the circumstances in which they have to recommend the application of their advice to their patients.
Therefore you come down the list and say, '' Let them be employed in research or laboratory work." I agree, but there are very few openings in that kind of work. It is not simply getting a man. You must have a laboratory for him to work in, and he has to work with those already employed there. Every now and then there are vacancies, but not frequently. You have to get the exact man to fit into the job, and you have to get the head of the laboratory to agree to accept a man who does not talk good English and can hardly be understood and will have difficulties in various ways. They are being fitted in. I do not think they can be fitted in at a much greater rate, but if anything can be done to simplify the machinery and to be sure that you can get them useful employment, it should be done. I hope that will be the result of the Debate, and I shall be interested to hear the reply of the


Parliamentary Secretary and to see if anything further can be done in this direction.

Dr. A. V. Hill: We have been unexpectedly fortunate so far during the war in the matter of our public health. An instructive broadsheet has been issued recently by P. E. P. on "Health in War-time," and the reasons for this good fortune are there analysed to some degree. They probably depend firstly on our much greater knowledge of food and of the protective elements in it and on the greater efficiency as compared with the last war in its distribution, and secondly on a better knowledge of disease, its treatment and its spread. The broadsheet also discusses the extent of the troubles we had during the last war of which the most extreme example was the influenza epidemic of 1918, when 112,000 people died, as compared with the preceding year, when only 10,000 died of that disease. There is obviously a chance that in this war troubles of that kind again will come upon us. We must not assume that our present good fortune will necessarily continue. There is no doubt that already Britain's medical resources are taxed to the utmost. In ordinary times, perhaps, we may have enough doctors as we are organised, that is, for dealing with disease only, with a limited public health service and with the limitation of the fees that ordinary people can pay for medical treatment. We should not have, even in ordinary times, more than one-half to two-thirds of the doctors wanted if, for example, the families of insured men were to be treated as the insured men themselves are treated, and if health were to be regarded as the essential thing instead of merely the treatment of disease which has already in many cases become incurable.
In war-time, even more than in peace, we have to think ahead, to think of health and to take thought for to-morrow, not merely to treat disease when it has already occurred. For example, as an illustration of the way in which disease can be anticipated, we know that 3,000 deaths from diphtheria and 60,000 cases annually could be abolished if only we could think ahead, if the Government and the people were not so complacent about the situation and if doctors were available to carry out the necessary immunisation. But if we are to avoid disease, if we are to treat the wounds of war and disease resulting

from fatigue, from temporary food deficiencies, from abnormal conditions due to enemy action resulting, for example, in the cutting of water supplies and drainage, if we are to provide the Fighting Services, our ships, the Royal Air Force, the units of the Army at home, and more particularly in the tropics where there are new dangers to meet, then far more doctors are required. For this reason we can only welcome with gratitude the promise of the United States to send us 1,000 doctors to help us. This promise shows the degree of realisation by the United Stales of our need. In view of this realisation it seems to me appalling that we should have 1,300 doctors from Europe unemployed of the 1,400 available. The hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) has spoken of muddle and complacency and of the bottle necks of the Central Medical War Committee and the security Departments. He also mentioned the bottle neck, as one may call it, in the information which ought to have reached those who can employ these doctors, that they are available if they will only ask for them.
The story that our people will not accept them and that the hospitals do not want them seems to me nonsense. Many of these doctors speak English well enough. I would like to give an example of the way in which a foreign doctor fitted into a British community. He came from Germany and had done research in this country before Hitler arrived. When Hitler arrived he came to England again to seek refuge here. He obtained a British medical qualification and took a practice among the miners in South Wales. A great affection developed between him and them, so much so that, although he had fought in the line against them in the last war they made him a vice-president of the local branch of the British Legion and his wife vice-president of the women's branch. He remarked to me humorously that he thought they must have loved him because he was not an Englishman. He fortunately has been able to be naturalised, because he spent some time in England before; he has had no trouble and he is in active work. Another man less fortunate joined the emergency medical service at the beginning of the war. He was interned last summer and let out again later on but remained unemployed for many months. After much agitation on his behalf it was only after a question from


the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) that he was taken back into a job. We are told that people will not like these foreign doctors. What about the Poles? The statement seems to me to be pure nonsense. Wherever they have gone the Polish troops, airmen and sailors have been liked. It is said that they cannot speak English well enough, but I gather that in Scotland, at least, they are learning very well the variety of English that is spoken there. If the troops and the sailors can, why not the doctors?

Dr. Russell Thomas: Has not my hon. Friend found in his experiece that the most prosperous doctor in an industrial town is generally a dark gentleman who can hardly speak any English but gathers a large amount of magical sentiment around him?

Dr. Hill: I cannot speak from experience about that, but I can well believe the truth of what the hon. Member says. We are told again that our Czech colleagues here cannot be used because they cannot speak English. Many of them do in fact speak English well and have great professional knowledge and skill. It seems to me again to be pure nonsense that these men cannot be used. We are told that German Jews cannot be used because people have a prejudice against them. My friend who went to South Wales and was beloved by the coalminers was himself a Jew. The people who raise these objections are often disguising their own prejudices by referring them to the common people. The ordinary people of this country reckon a man by his human qualities as the coalminers in South Wales did. If a man understands them, is friendly with them, and can serve them, they will like and appreciate him.
It is the usual story of complacency and unwillingness to take responsibility leading to failure. In some quarters vested interests will attempt to stop foreigners from competing, as is said, with our own people. The old traditional government of the medical profession, or, as it should be termed, the calling of medicine, by wealthy consultants is already doomed; we must realise that the public health, and not the interests of consultants in Harley Street, or even the supposed interests of busy practitioners who are paid by the

job and not by the day, are at stake. We must examine the objections that are made to the use of reliable aliens with the same scepticism that we do Hitler's reasons for the arrival here of Rudolf Hess last Saturday. Actually little objection to the employment of alien doctors is openly voiced by the medical profession, and practically no objection by our people. The people are courageous, patient, broad-minded, friendly and reasonable. They, like the Welsh coalminers, realise who are their friends, who are competent and who can be of service to them.
May I give an illustration of a woman doctor who is at present unemployed? This woman is pure German; in the German phrase, she is an Aryan. She was one of the most distinguished children's doctors in Germany. In 1933 she came to England, not to escape persecution but having realised earlier than many Members of this House the nature of the Nazi tyranny. She was employed in a well-known health centre. She took a British medical degree some years ago, but now she is forbidden to practise. Why? She is only anxious to serve this country. I understand that the Central Medical War Committee have applied at last to the Security Department for the necessary permit for her. Whether she will get it I do not know, but I am sure of her reliability.
We are told that there is no demand for the services of such people. The demand could easily enough be made obvious if the possibility of employing them were advertised. In one borough of which I know an attempt was made to find a suitable candidate for a vacancy in one of the medical services. Finally no appointment at all was made, because only one man applied, and he was described by his referee as "all right when he is not drunk." A lady, who interviewed him as a member of the appointing committee, tells me that she regards that testimonial as a gross exaggeration. When such a situation exists, when it is impossible to get British doctors for the essential needs of the population, how can it be said that there is no demand for these thoroughly competent and reliable aliens who are with us? In America the words "appeasement" and "appeaser" are now the worst form of abuse. I believe that here the word "complacency" is rapidly becoming an


even worse form of abuse, which may, perhaps, soon become an un parliamentary expression. In spite of that, I would venture to say that this most deadly crime has been and still is dogging our footsteps, and I hope that this Debate may ensure that the importance of the subject is realised and that adequate steps may be, taken to meet the need.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I certainly think this Debate will have proved of use if it can be made clear that the Ministry of Health and those interested in the health of our people do not view the situation with complacency. The lion. Member who opened the Debate told us what he considered to be the procedure if a doctor of alien or Allied nationality wishes to be employed in one of the hospitals; of this country. I think it has not been fully understood that the original arrangement was to have been that the Central Medical War Committee were to act as a clearing house, that the name should be registered there and that from that committee the hospitals would be able to go. the names of doctors available. I would remind the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Dr. Hill) that this has nothing to do with specialists, wealthy or otherwise, in Harley Street, but that the employing authorities of the hospitals are in many cases the local authority. Some of these employing authorities have got into touch first with the committee, or the alien doctor has first got into touch with them, and in these latter cases application has then had to be made to the Central Medical War Committee, so that the name of this doctor who wishes to be put on the register of the General Medical Council can then go forward.
There are two things of which we all want to make certain, I think. One is that the doctor has skill and that his training has been what he professes it to be. If he is to go into the hospitals it is natural that one must check those things. The second point we have to check is that he is loyal to this country. As I have listened to the Debate the two points which have come up have been, first, has the machine worked too slowly, and, secondly, is it the right machine to check the two points which I have mentioned? It was in January of this year that the Regulation was made permitting alien doctors to serve in these hospitals. The

original Regulation of last year applied to American and Canadian doctors, and the Regulation of January this year added a long list of Allied countries whose citizens would be welcome to serve in our hospitals. The arrangement has been working for about four months. The hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) said there were about 1,400, and he thought only about 100 had been employed. I am not saying the number is satisfactory, because I think the machine has got into action too slowly. It is not as bad as that. I think the number is 1,350 and now 200 or 250 are being employed.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I should like to be quite accurate about the figures. She has told the House that 250 have actually procured employment; does she mean that 250 names have been sent to the Central Medical War Committee, which is an entirely different matter?

Miss Horsbrugh: No, I have the figures for the hon. Gentleman as near as I can get them, and they show that 59 obtained employment at a hospital first and that then their credentials were checked. Then 333 names have been sent in to the Security Department, and arrangements were then made for 224 of that number. Then 126 were registered with the Council, and we think that they are in employment, while 98 remain in the pool that has now been created. Their bona fides have been examined and they are awaiting employment.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: The hon. Lady was not strictly accurate. I am sure she did not intend to mislead the House when she gave the number of those who had actually secured employment. My 100 was not far off the mark, after all, compared with 126.

Miss Horsbrugh: If the hon. Member was listening he heard the two figures 59 and 126. I said—and I have been very honest about it—there were 59 that actually secured employment themselves and then their cases went back to the Central War Committee to have their registrations taken up. A further 98 have now gone through. The exact number of the 98 who are in employment I cannot say definitely at the moment. My hon. Friend shakes his head, but if he has


statistics which are more up to date I shall be interested to hear them. The statistics which he gave to us in a letter were sent some weeks ago. That being so, the hon. Gentleman and I disagree over 20 or 25. The main scheme has been slow, as I have said, but we have increased the pace and the numbers now coming through from the Home Office Department are at the rate of about 100 a week. The thing is now getting into its stride.
The other point was as to the number of doctors and the possibility of employment. A great many of them are specialists as the hon. Gentleman knows, and it is not always possible to employ in their own speciality those who are specialists. My hon. Friend referred to one case of a doctor who he said was of international reputation and an outstanding person. It is not impossible in many cases to employ these people where there is a deep need, such as we have at present, in some of the junior positions in a hospital. That is where we want them to-day probably more than anywhere else in the junior posts in the hospitals. Some of these people would not be suitable for such posts. Others are doing part-time work or continuing various studies, and are not able to give their whole time. But I want it to be quite clearly understood that we are anxious that they should be employed, if we have checked up their bona fides both as regards the laws of this country and as regards their training. We are anxious that the hospitals should employ them. We have not only sent circulars to the hospitals on the subject, but the hospital officers are and have been getting in touch with the hospital and suggesting that they should employ these doctors, and informing them that a list can be sent by the Central War Committee giving their qualifications.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the 1,000 doctors who, we are glad to know, are coming from the United States. He pointed out that they were particularly for the Services and said he hoped that they would not be used on cleaning instruments or doing other work of no importance. One thins; we have learned from this war and I suppose it has been learnt at other times—is the difficulty of regulating both the supply and the demand for doctors and nurses. I remember

some time ago discussing the number of nurses to be kept at the hospitals, when we were told that we were keeping too many nurses there and they were not getting sufficient work. Then came Dunkirk, and instead of the nurses or doctors not having enough to do, there was a rush of work. I think we are all agreed on the difficulty of ensuring sufficient R.A.M.C. personnel for the Services while not having too many standing by. If we knew the exact course of the war, if we knew the exact part of the world to which the Army would be going, and if we could see ahead, it would be very much easier to distribute the right number.

Dr. Russell Thomas: While the Army is in this country, is it not quite clear that, when they are stationed at a certain town, the local doctors can quite as well attend them as the ordinary R.A.M.C. lieutenant?

Miss Horsbrugh: Certainly, and my right hon. Friend has considered that. If the troops are in a particular town at a given time and have no R.A.M.C. doctors, they have to be attended by the local doctors, but at any moment they may leave the district and have no one to attend them. I think more can be done in co-operation between the practitioners in a certain area and the troops stationed there so that there should not be too many, but we have to face the difficulty that changes may be made and the personnel of the R.A.M.C. must be sufficient to provide for them when they have to move. Several hon. Gentleman have said that, after all, the majority of the foreign doctors can speak English. I do not think that is necessarily so. A great many of them cannot, and one of the difficulties we might have to face would be the difficulty of language if the foreign doctors were used as we hope to use the American doctors. Those who do not speak English as well as others find it far easier to work in one of the hospitals, where they are working with other doctors who can assist them.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke of the arrangements of the Central Medical War Committee and the distribution of doctors throughout the country. He suggested that local committees should be set up to deal with local conditions. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) pointed out, that is exactly


what has been done. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbigh thinks that other people ought to be co-opted on to these local committees. That has already been considered, but his main suggestion was to have local committees to deal with the local subject of the necessary medical personnel to remain in their particular district.

Sir F. Fremantle: And also to arrange for the practices of those who are called up to be looked after by those remaining in the district. That is a very essential part of the scheme.

Miss Horsbrugh: The point is that the local committee should see how many doctors are required to carry on the work in the district. If one or two leave to join the Forces, the people in the neighbourhood must be looked after properly by those doctors who are left. I hope that I have been able in these few moments to convince my hon. Friend as to the difficulty of the problem, and to convince him that the trouble is not complacency, but perhaps a machine that has worked too slowly. I have listened to the criticisms— or shall I say, to the suggestions? —and I have not heard any suggestion as to how we could have a better organisation to deal with these doctors My hon. Friend complained that papers went backwards and forwards. The doctor has first to get the employment, and then to have it checked up. Nobody has suggested that there should not be this double check. We must check up to find out that the doctors have had sufficient training. It must be remembered also that we have various areas, protected areas and others, about which there are particular difficulties; and that the doctors going into these hospitals are looking after both military and civilian casualties and sick. It is said that we have been too slow in checking up, through my right hon. Friend, as to the loyalty and credentials of these doctors. It has been slow, perhaps.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Very slow.

Miss Horsbrugh: My hon. Friend says, Very slow." Now that we have done over 450 cases, and they are coming through at the rate of 100 a week, it is not too slow. But suppose that there had been one, or two, or three, mistakes, and that these people had not been all that they appeared to be, and that they had been put into the hospitals among the

soldiers and civilians to-day. Is it not a great deal better to be slightly slow than to make a mistake as to a doctor's skill or his loyalty to this country?

Sir H. Morris-Jones: My hon. Friend will agree that both she and I are anxious to make this matter clear, so she will perhaps pardon my interruption. Why should it be necessary now for the Aliens Department of the Home Office to renew their inquiries into these particular cases as they come up week by week, when they have had a dossier in respect of each of these doctors in this country for at least 20 months, and probably for two years? Is it not an almost invariable rule that the amount of sabotage in the medical profession is infinitesimal? Why should an applicant have to wait two months in order to get his dossier through the Home Office, after having secured an appointment?

Miss Horsbrugh: I should very much like to know of any cases of doctors who, having secured their appointments, have had to wait for two months. I do not think that the hon. Member will find that there are many, as the Regulations came into effect only in January. As to whether it is necessary to go into these cases so minutely, I believe that it is. In these hospitals there are military, airmen and civilians. I have sometimes thought that if any of us wished to go to any other country, to obtain information which would be of the greatest use to our country in a war, there would be nowhere better to go than to a hospital. Go into a hospital ward, listen to the conversations, and I think you will obtain more information about what is going on in the country than you would get anywhere else. There is no other way, I believe, in which you ought to be more careful than in dealing with the subject of hospitals. It might have been slow. We would like to see it quicker, but there is no hon. Gentleman in this House who does not want it to be thorough. I hope that the number will be 100 a week, perhaps increased to 150, but, if I make too many promises, the hon. Member for Denbigh will say that I was incorrect. At any rate, I have proved that we are not complacent. We believe that there are opportunities for these doctors and that we shall be able to employ them, but we need to employ them with safety both for the health of the patients and for the war effort.

Orders of the Day — CONCENTRATION OF PRODUCTION (PERIODICALS).

Mr. Tinker: I want to call the attention of the House to a Question which I put to the President of the Board of Trade last week. Everyone is anxious to avoid redundancy as much as possible, and it is our duty as Members of Parliament to draw the attention of the Departments where we think there is something that can be saved. The matter that I then brought forward was with regard to newspapers. In my opinion, far too much time and material are wasted on the printing of newspapers. In time of peace everybody is allowed to do what he likes. He can waste as much material as he likes and can cause unemployment, and nobody can say him nay, but we have arrived at a time when, if there is any waste at all, it is our duty to call the attention of the House to the matter. The House has attempted to do this in several directions. We have set about the concentration of industry. It is said it is no use having plant running with extra overhead charges and a small personnel, when, by concentrating the plant and labour, better use can be made of it in the interests of the nation.
No one has as yet attempted to tackle the newspapers. Why? First of all, they are so powerful that any attempt by a Government Department to check their printing at all would be met with the remark, "You are stifling the free expression of opinion" That would be a very difficult matter for any Government Department to challenge. It would be said, "You are afraid of criticism, and, therefore, you are going to curtail news which might be detrimental to you and put you out of office." I do not support any idea for stifling opinion, but I find very scanty information in the newspapers at this time. It appears to be a question of trying to find sufficient with which to fill up. If that is the case, a thorough examination of the whole position ought to be made. I do not know how many newspapers and periodicals are printed. There must be a tremendous number. I do not know of any of these as having gone out of circulation since the commencement of the war, with the exception of the "Daily Worker," which was suppressed because of its activities against the State. I have not heard of any other paper going out of existence because of lack of circulation or for any other reason.

It must be apparent then that all these papers in operation before the war are still in operation and are probably carrying on with the same personnel to do the printing, and yet we are asking all to do whatever they can to provide labour and material for the benefit of the State. Moreover, a big section are not being curtailed or challenged at all in their work.
It is for the benefit of the State that there should be an examination of this question, and the State ought to do it. I do not want it to be thought that I am a tempting to suppress any newspaper, but I want the House of Commons to appeal to the newspaper-owning fraternity to organise themselves and see, as we see when we look at the cotton industry, whether some curtailment is not required in the interests of the State. If they are satisfied, as they must be satisfied if it is brought to their notice, that there is little need for this tremendous number of newspapers and publications of all descriptions, let them say that they will try to cut them down and show what can be done.
We have, in this country at the moment, five or six political views. There are the Conservative party, the Labour party, the Liberal party, the Independent Labour party and the Communist party, and one would say that five leading newspapers, expressing their points of view, ought to be sufficient. It might be said that there are others, but these could be put under one head as being against the Government altogether. No one wants to suppress them, but there is no need to have scores of papers all saying what ought to be done and ought not to be done. I want newspapers, like other sections of the community, to be as loyal as others by saying that there is no need for all these publications. If it is said that expression of opinion will be curtailed, I would draw the attention of the House to a paper which I have in my possession. It is a daily newspaper, and one page is devoted to the silliest stuff imaginable. One can hardly believe that at a time like the present a daily paper would devote one page to this kind of trash. When you talk about the free expression of opinion, this is an example which makes you say that the whole thing ought to be put on one side altogether. I am bringing this matter forward in order to get the President of the Board of Trade interested in it. I


want him, not to issue an order from the House as to what ought to be done, but to approach the leading newspapers, call p. conference and ask them whether it is necessary to continue all the publications that are brought out in peace-time. The nation is at war now and is asking for all the labour, factories and plant it can get for the war effort. I am satisfied there is a great reservoir of labour that could be turned to better use. I am satisfied there is much plant employed in the printing of these newspapers that could be more usefully used.
I want also to refer to another matter that comes under the head of printing. By nearly every post hon. Members get a great deal of printed matter dealing with various points. I do not. think there is one in a dozen hon. Members who attempts to read all this printed material. It goes into the wastepaper basket. Is it not time that the President of the Board of Trade watched that sort of thing? We have conferences among the miners and the cotton workers urging them that every ounce of labour is required for the public weal. Then we receive these publications that must require a great deal of labour in printing and use up a great deal of material. One is compelled to ask whether the State is organised as it ought to be. I believe the reason this matter has not been tackled is that we, and especially the Government, are afraid of what the Press may say about us. But whether the Press condemns us or not, something needs to be done about the matter. At the moment I cannot say to what extent something ought to be done. I have a Question on the Order Paper asking how many newspapers are printed. I feel sure that if the information can be obtained, the number will be a very big one. I have claimed the attention of the House for the purpose of asking the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary to see whether something can be done in the matter. I believe that much can be done. In raising the matter, I believe I am raising something which has not claimed the attention of newspaper men so far. I believe they can be induced to come forward and help us. I have raised it also in the hope that I may get some assistance from other hon. Members.

Mr. Mathers (Linlithgrow):: My hon Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has stated his case in his usual forceful

and yet moderate manner. His remarks, in the main, appeared to deal with national newspapers. I do not wish in the slightest degree to take away from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade the opportunity of replying on that aspect of the matter, but my hon. Friend indicated that he is raising the whole question of news publications that circulate throughout the country. I have risen merely to say I think that, in respect of local newspapers which circulate within the boundaries of a county or of several counties, it would be, in my judgment, a serious and a regrettable thing to interfere with those well-known organs of public opinion, which I believe are in many ways more valuable from the point of view of the expression of public opinion than are the great national newspapers. The great national newspapers carry the day-to-day records of news. They are read for their news value. But much more in the way of the formation of opinion gets into the local newspapers which I have in mind. They are much more closely and carefully read than the national daily newspapers. From that point of view, certainly they have much more influence. From my knowledge of them—and I have a fair knowledge of quite a number of publications of this sort —they have in past years done their job of creating and informing public opinion very well indeed. At the present time they are performing a very useful function in maintaining the morale of the people of this country. When my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh makes reference to cutting things out and asks for a greater concentration, I hope that suppression in that respect will not cause the Minister to think of suppressing weekly newspapers.

Mr. Tinker: I had no idea of suppressing anything. What I want to see is a more concentrated effort. Where that might lead, I do not want to say at the moment.

Mr. Mathers: In that event I am sure that the remarks I have made will not in any way cut across the purposes which the hon. Member for Leigh has in view, and I am quite willing to leave the matter there.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: It is not a waste of time to discuss this question.


which is exercising the minds of many whose industries have been concentrated. Only last week I received a letter on this question from the Minister, and I thank him for his prompt reply, although I regard it as unsatisfactory. It is in that spirit that this question was put on the Order Paper. My hon. Friend simply asks that this question be examined to see whether it would be in the national interest to deal with this matter by concentration. We feel that this industry is not being looked into with the same vigilance as is the case with other industries. We think it might be. No one is suggesting suppression. The hon. Member feels, like myself, that there are many newspapers in the country which could well afford to use less space by not publishing things which are not in the national interest. I am surprised to see the number of advertisement columns to-day, advertising things which are of no earthly use to the nation. I cannot understand why space is used for this purpose, other than for purely financial reasons. I can understand the owner of a newspaper wanting profits from the advertisements. The Government must look at this question sooner or later. Another thing which is exercising our minds is the reservation age which applies to the newspapers and printing world. I am told there is some preferential treatment in regard to the age of reservation. That ought not to be so. I agree that the printing industry is important, but so are the mining industry, the cotton industry and many other industries. Could not the Minister consult the Post Office with reference to some of these papers, which I am certain are simply put into the waste-paper basket by the majority of Members who receive them? Something needs to be done at a time like this, when we in the mining industry have agreed to an order, which in ordinary conditions we would never have consented to, because of the needs for labour in this great struggle confronting us.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): The Board of Trade have certainly no reason to complain of the way in which this case has been put. I was relieved to find that my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) made it very clear that he did not wish to suppress the free ex-

pression of any views, provided they did not directly conflict with the war effort. It is hard to see how one can shut down, as he suggested, any section of the Press without running the risk of curtailing in some way the free expression of opinion. He showed us a sheet from a newspaper, and asked whether it was really necessary to the war effort. I do not know whether it is or not, but I am quite certain that newspapers with their restricted space do not publish things the public do not want. I do not say that my hon. Friend is amused with that particular page. Obviously it has its use, otherwise the papers would not publish it, and it is not unreasonable to allow a paper to have some discretion as to what it shall give its readers. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) asked about the age of reservation of printers. It is now 35. At stage B, which will be declared to be operative very shortly, there will be no reservation. I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench said about local papers. They have a real value which cannot be over-estimated in maintaining the national morale. I am certain that the hon. Member for Leigh had not in mind, when he talked of the concentration of all papers into five, that it should include the widespread suppression of local papers.
His main argument was that time and materials were being wasted, and he said that trade had fallen off in many directions when the Board of Trade produced its concentration scheme. That is not quite true. We have introduced our concentration schemes only in a comparatively limited area. Our object in limiting it and in selecting the particular trades are threefold. The first is that, owing to the general reduction in the trade of the country, it would be impossible, as the war went on, for manufacturers to earn a decent livelihood if all those at present engaged continued to try to eke out an existence on very short running. In order to preserve them for the rehabilitation of trade after the war, we said that some measure of concentration was necessary. Our second point was that we wanted factory-trained labour, and our third was that we wanted to make available as much factory space as we could for storage and munition work. Clearly the factory-trained labour employed on papers is comparatively limited.


I suppose those actually engaged in printing would be useful, but the vast administrative staffs and editorial staffs of newspapers would not be so available. These form a considerable proportion of the staff of a newspaper. I can assure the hon. Member that the papers have already considerably reduced the amount of labour that they are employing. I have endeavoured to get some figures from them, but I was unsuccessful except in one case, which I believe is typical, where there has been a reduction of 25 per cent. of the labour employed since the war started. The third point was factory space. Many newspapers are printed in premises which are ill-suited either for storage or for turning into munitions factories. Their vast printing presses would take a lot of moving, and the floor space made available by any suppression of papers would be of very small use in the war effort.
Let us look at the question of materials. The amount of newsprint consumed in September, 1939, was 11,100 tons per week. During the last six months that has been reduced to 3,200—a reduction of 75 per cent. That is a very large reduction.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn" —[Mr. Whiteley.]

Mr. Tinker: The consumption of paper has fallen from 11,000 tons to 3,000. Has the working staff fallen in the same proportion? If not, why?

Captain Waterhouse: I have pointed out that I was unable to get the figures, but the fall has not been in anything like that proportion. In the case I mentioned it was 25 per cent. My hon. Friend asks why. Although I am not a newspaper man and do not know the inside of newspaper offices, the answer probably is that the editorial staffs and the staffs for the compilation of news have to be very much the same whether one is dealing with a paper of eight or ten pages, or a paper of

four or six pages. You cannot get a pro rata reduction. There has been a genuine effort, however, by those engaged in the production of newspapers to meet the present emergency. My hon. Friend dealt with the number of "odd" publications that are sent to Members of Parliament. We all suffer from them and I agree that our lives would be much happier if they did not come to us. We can drop them into the waste-paper basket, but we have the satisfaction of knowing that the paper is now re-pulped so that there is no real loss. I am informed that there is definite rationing in that direction.
When we come to the concentration of the small presses which produce that sort of publication, we are faced with a tremendous problem because the vast majority of them have less than 10 men each. There is an average of six or seven in the ordinary little printing works, and they are spread all over the country. I do not see how we could attempt to concentrate an industry as widely spread as that. The President of the Board of Trade, when he introduced his concentration scheme, laid it down that very small units of production would be disregarded. These printing works are par excellence an example of very small units of production. I hope I have said enough to show that the Board of Trade has not been oblivious of the points that my hon. Friend has put forward. We have had them under review before. We are satisfied that it is all important, at this time especially, that we should have a free, frank and virtually unhampered expression of opinion. We are satisfied, too, that at the moment there are not too many copies of papers being published, because my hon. Friend and I know full well that if we go to a railway station at noon, on any day, we are lucky if we can get a morning paper of any description. I hope that for all these reasons my hon. Friend will be content to leave this problem to the good sense of the newspapers. They will have heard his views and if any of them, of their own accord, can make any such arrangements as he suggests nobody will be more satisfied than he and I.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to